Appendix C

Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-i 

Scoping Summary Report

TABLES Page

C-1 General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs........................................................................ C-5 

C-2 Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy.................................................. C-24 

C-3 General Comments Related to the EISs.......................................................................................... C-39 

C-4.A Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General ......................................................... C-431 

C-4.B Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking ............................................................. C-593 

C-4.C Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and Reproduction........................ C-618 

C-4.D Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Winter Range................................................................... C-625 

C-4.E Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing ................................................................ C-629 

C-4.F Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Summer Range................................................................. C-631 

C-5.A Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development....................................................... C-632 

C-5.B Comments Related to Minerals and Mining................................................................................. C-683 

C-5.C Comments Related to General Energy Development .............................................................. C-741 

C-5.D Comments Related to Renewable Energy Development......................................................... C-773 

C-5.E Comments Related to General Construction Impacts............................................................. C-793 

C-5.F Comments Related to Transmission ............................................................................................. C-808 

C-5.G Comments Related to Utilities ....................................................................................................... C-819 

C-5.H Comments Related to Geothermal Energy Development....................................................... C-823 

C-5.I Comments Related to Noise........................................................................................................... C-825 

C-6.A Comments Related to Livestock Grazing..................................................................................... C-827 

C-6.B Comments Related to Farmland and Agricultural Use ............................................................. C-967 

C-7.A Comments Related to Wildlife-General....................................................................................... C-973 

C-7.B Comments Related to Wildlife-Birds.......................................................................................... C-1007 

C-7.C Comments Related to General Biological Resources............................................................. C-1017 

C-7.D Comments Related to Terrestrial Wildlife ................................................................................ C-1026 

C-7.E Comments Related to Special Status Wildlife........................................................................... C-1030 

C-8.A Comments Related to General Vegetation Management....................................................... C-1034 

C-8.B Comments Related to Weeds/Invasive Species........................................................................ C-1072 

C-8.C Comments Related to the Vegetation on the Sagebrush Steppe......................................... C-1091 

C-8.D Comments Related to Special Status Vegetation ..................................................................... C-1107 

C-8.E Comments Related to Forestry.................................................................................................... C-1109 

C-8.F Comments Related to Wetland and Riparian Vegetation...................................................... C-1110 

C-9.A Comments Related to Travel Management............................................................................... C-1116 

C-9.B Comments Related to Recreation ............................................................................................... C-1146 

C-10.A Comments Related to Socioeconomics...................................................................................... C-1157 

C-10.B Comments Related to Tribal Interests and Native American Religious Concerns ......... C-1198 

C-11.A Comments Related to Lands and Realty on Public Lands...................................................... C-1200 

C-11.B Comments Related to Lands and Realty on Private Lands.................................................... C-1233 

C-12 Comments Related to Special Management Areas.................................................................. C-1244 

C-13 Comments Related to Fire Management.................................................................................... C-1320 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-ii Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

TABLES (continued) Page

C-14.A Comments Related to Water Resources................................................................................... C-1354 

C-14.B Comments Related to Soils........................................................................................................... C-1368 

C-15 Comments Related to Drought Management and Climate Change .................................... C-1370 

C-16 Comments Related to Wild Horses and Burros...................................................................... C-1380 
May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-1

Scoping Summary Report

APPENDIX C

COMMENTS BY RESOURCE PLANNING ISSUE

The BLM received a total of 7,472 discrete comments during the Greater SageGrouse LUPAs/EISs scoping period. Of those comments, 5,253 applied to the 

range-wide planning area, 1,023 were specific to the Great Basin Region, and 

1,196 specific to the Rocky Mountain Region. These comments were classified 

by process category and by planning issue. Comments for each process category

and for planning issue category are included in this appendix. Comments are 

included verbatim from the comment letters; however, information in letters

that was not considered a comment is not included here. Comments pertaining 

to multiple planning issue categories are included in each category. Comment 

letters can be viewed in their entirety at 

https://connect.doi.gov/uniquesig9a79b9d61a63982645

fad83233d9ce7a/uniquesig0/InternalSite/Login.asp?resource_id=A59F1E5B16ED

4320A717A2AD0F62F245&login_type=2&site_name=sharepoint&secure=1&ori

g_url=https%3a%2f%2fconnect.doi.gov%2f. Comments are included for the 

following groups, and are ordered by range-wide, region, subregion, or state:

Comments by Process Category:

Table C-1, General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Table C-2, Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comments by Planning Issue:

Table C-3, General Comments Related to the LUPs

Issue 1: Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse Habitat

Table C-4.A, Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Table C-4.B, Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-2 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.C, Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and 

Reproduction

Table C-4.D, Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Winter Range

Table C-4.E, Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing

Table C-4.F, Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Summer Range

Issue 2: Livestock Grazing

Table C-6.A, Comments Related to Livestock Grazing

Table C-6.B, Comments Related to Farmland and Agricultural Use

Issue 3: Energy and Mineral Development

Table C-5.A, Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Table C-5.B, Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Table C-5.C, Comments Related to General Energy Development

Table C-5.D, Comments Related to Renewable Energy Development

Table C-5.E, Comments Related to General Construction Impacts

Table C-5.F, Comments Related to Transmission

Table C-5.G, Comments Related to Utilities

Table C-5.H, Comments Related to Geothermal Energy Development

Table C-5.I, Comments Related to Noise

Issue : Fish and Wildlife

Table C-7.A, Comments Related to Wildlife-General

Table C-7.B, Comments Related to Wildlife-Birds

Table C-7.C, Comments Related to General Biological Resources

Table C-7.D, Comments Related to Terrestrial Wildlife

Table C-7.E, Comments Related to Special Status Wildlife

Issue : Vegetation Management

Table C-8.A, Comments Related to General Vegetation Management

Table C-8.B, Comments Related to Weeds/Invasive Species
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-3

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-8.C, Comments Related to the Vegetation on the Sagebrush Steppe

Table C-8.D, Comments Related to Special Status Vegetation

Table C-8.E, Comments Related to Forestry

Table C-8.F, Comments Related to Wetland and Riparian Vegetation

Issue : Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice Considerations

Table C-10.A, Comments Related to Socioeconomics

Table C-10.B, Comments Related to Tribal Interests and Native American 

Religious Concerns

Issue : Wildland Fire Management

Table C-13, Comments Related to Fire Management

Issue : Special Management Areas

Table C-12, Comments Related to Special Management Areas

Issue : Lands and Realty

Table C-11.A, Comments Related to Lands and Realty on Public Lands

Table C-11.B, Comments Related to Lands and Realty on Private Lands

Issue 10: Recreation and Travel Management

Table C-9.A, Comments Related to Travel Management

Table C-9.B, Comments Related to Recreation

Issue 11: Water and Soil

Table C-14.A, Comments Related to Water Resources

Table C-14.B, Comments Related to Soils

Issue 12: Drought Management and Climate Change

Table C-15, Comments Related to Drought Management and Climate Change

Issue 13: Wild Horse and Burros

Table C-16, Comments Related to Wild Horses and Burros
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-4 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

This page intentionally left blank.
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-5

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. I am serving my third term on the County FSA committee and have tried every way possible to improve the CRP program. 

As it stands now we can only graze the CRP for 1 year for management practices during a ten year contract. This is a waste 

and the feed on these tracts become worthless in about three years. They need to be harvested or grazed every third year.

All Both rmc0010GB

2. The Bureau of Land Management Notice of Intent, published in the Federal Register 12/09/2012, states, "The BLM and FS will 

address socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives." Wind farm developers make all kinds of positive claims about the 

benefits of job creation and tax revenues coming into counties from wind powered electrical generation. Most of the jobs are 

temporary and only last during the construction phase of a wind farm. The contractor building the facility brings much of the 

workforce in. Their personnel don't buy or build houses but rather rent existing housing or park their travel trailers in RV 

campgrounds for the duration of the project. This fact is based on my observation of a wind farm facility constructed in 

Lincoln County, Kansas from 2007 to 2010. Once completed only a small handful of workers are needed to operate the 

Facility.

All Both rmc0038GB

3. A socioeconomic impact that gets little consideration for wind farms is sustainability, or the lack thereof. Developers of wind 

farms have financial incentives that promote development but not sustainability. Double declining 5-year depreciation allows 

wind farm developers to depreciate the unsubsidized capital cost of installed equipment in five years. For the first 10 years of 

operation they get a production tax credit of 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour of energy produced.

All Both rmc0038GB

4. There is mounting evidence that government mandated installation of "green" energy actually destroys jobs and has a negative 

economic impact. Spain wanted to be a world leader in renewable energy development. An associate professor at King Juan 

Carlos University testified to the U.S. Congress, "Spain has already attempted to lead the world in a clean energy 

transformation. But our research shows that Spain's policies were economically destructive." As many countries in the 

financially broken European Union face bankruptcy and loan defaults, the government incentives to expand wind power and 

other forms of "green" energy are being reduced and tens of thousands are losing their jobs. In California there are at least 

three large wind energy sites, Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio, where the operators just walked away when 

government incentives dried up. Local taxpayers are left to clean up thousands of abandoned wind turbine towers.

All Both rmc0038GB

5. As stated earlier in this comment, Lassen County is not a wealthy county. If wind farms are permitted, constructed and then 

abandoned, the county will not have the resources to reclaim the sites and return them to pre-wind farm conditions.

All Both rmc0038GB

6. The management disaster that the US Forest Service has achieved in mis-managing the nation's forests should not be a model 

for this effort.

All Both cfc0035GB

7. Eliminate all hunting season. All Both cfc0047GB

8. Open season on all predators (no limit) All Both cfc0047GB

9. Instruct Fish and Game to improve wildlife and bird management. All Both cfc0047GB

10. As long as extremist courts are allowed to govern professional personnel and decision making you don't have a chance. Look 

how your hands are tied with the mustang. Your expertise and capabilities mean nothing when decisions are made from the 

bench - Good Luck.

All Both cfc0064GB

11. Many of these groups simply want to end all grazing on public land and the use of Federal land by humans. These groups All Both cfc0065GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-6 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

would like to see the BLM, Oregon Fish and Wildlife and other supportive groups fail in the goal to keep the Sage-grouse off 

the endangered list.

12. My comment on the Sage Grouse is that I think coyotes, bobcats, eagles and hawks have a greater affect on sage grouse 

population than humans do.

All Both cfc0028RM

13. I think any sage grouse management should include increased predator control. I believe predator control would result in the 

quickest increase in sage grouse number.

All Both cfc0029RM

14. 3. The importance of predator control cannot be overemphasized where sage grouse are concerned, so predator control 

must be part of the management plan also.

All Both cfc0030RM

15. The powersports industry as weIl as the broader OHV community have been partners to the USFS as it moves through its 

Travel Management Rule and continues to support BLM efforts to move to designated route systems, and have actively 

encouraged rider groups and individual riders to meaningfuIly participate in these processes. However, we are concerned 

that OHV recreationists may become fatigued as there is literaIly no end to efforts to limit motorized use. As many Forests 

wrap up the initial implementation of the Travel Management rule and OHVers begin to utilize the "new" systems of trails and 

areas they are now again being singled out in this process. While we understand that effective management requires continual 

review and management conditions are ever changing, we are concerned that motorized recreationists wiII feel that no 

decisions are final, as every decision is seemingly foIlowed, and trumped by, yet another national effort that caIls for ever less 

OHV opportunities.

All Both emc0330GB

16. BLM land that are no longer part of a National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, or National Forest should be transferred to the 

states for them to manage.

All Both emc0217GB

17. An example of this is the bull trout, the endangered species paper work lists the Salmon River Basin as not having an issue, and 

in fact the fish is in great shape and not in any danger, in other words very stable.

All Both emc0045GB

18. ADMINISTRATIVE

The following issues are outside the scope of the EIS since only Land Use Plans (LUP) are being amended. While the LUP’s 

don’t address politics or funding, the regulatory mechanisms for sage grouse and their habitat within the LUP’s won’t be 

successful without addressing the following subjects. It is impossible for the Conservation Measures goal, “ maintain and/or 

increase sage‐grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which 

populations depend in cooperation with other conservation partners” to be met without addressing politics and funding at 

the SO / WO levels.

FUNDING

ISSUE: Lack of out-year planning funds for enhancement projects

Regular annual program funding in most renewable resource programs doesn’t include funds for out-year planning, especially 

in BLM. BLM managers take a dim view of specialists performing future planning while the current year’s workload exists and 

that workload many times is well funded by permit applicants whose projects are “fast-tracked” by Congress and upper levels 

of BLM. Without out year planning, it is nearly impossible to obtain and use some types of matching funds. It is especially 

difficult or nearly impossible to plan and execute a larger scale habitat enhancement project in programs other than fire’s fuels

All Both emc0083GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-7

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

reduction program. In part, this is because BLM project funds are only available for one year. New money isn’t needed, just 

reprogramming of existing funds.

ISSUE: Lack of maintenance funds for existing sage grouse habitat enhancement projects

Congressional funding to land management agencies for habitat projects is for new projects – only new projects count as 

target accomplishments. Normal maintenance of existing projects can’t be accomplished because there is little funding for 

maintenance and any maintenance work actually done doesn’t count for anything under the reportable units of 

accomplishment to Congress. New money isn’t needed, just reprogramming of existing funds.

ISSUE: Lack of BLM carryover funding ability

Although there are several opportunities to match agency funds through programs like Challenge Cost Share and Sikes Act, 

the BLM’s funding cycle makes these funds very difficult to use. The federal year begins October 1. Most state funding cycles

begin July 1 and many conservation organization’s funding cycles begin January 1. That leaves 9 months or less to complete a 

project or place it under contract. A large, higher dollar project such as a vegetation habitat enhancement can’t make it 

through the planning / contracting system in this time period. BLM is very adverse to carry-over funding which would solve 

some of the problem. The USFS funding cycle a little better in that there is a two year budget cycle and carryover funding is

routinely done.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

ISSUE: Livestock grazing program’s agency / Congressional politics will hinder sage grouse management

Livestock grazing on both BLM and USFS allotments has always been politically problematic. Some agency employees whose 

job is to implement LUP’s and oversee AMP’s believe they must protect livestock permittees from terms of permit and 

allotment plan terms / conditions; the mission of their job hasn’t been made clear. In many cases, though, when agency 

employees try to enforce regulations requiring livestock grazers to simply obtain a grazing permit, to enforce terms of the 

grazing permit, implement objectives in an RMP or enforce terms of an AMP, these efforts are met with insurmountable 

resistance within the agency’s upper administrative levels. Without every BLM person at every level going in the same 

direction as per the LUPs objectives and actions, meaningful sage grouse habitat management cannot occur. Resistance to 

trying to enforce grazing regulations, terms of permits, LUP guidelines etc is not unfounded as Congress has punished both 

agencies and individuals for trying to manage livestock grazing; some livestock permittees have extraordinary political power. 

The American public, many agency managers and field personnel do not understand that livestock grazing on public lands and 

USFS administered lands is not a right – it is a privilege.

WILD HORSES

ISSUE: Excessive wild horse numbers and yearlong grazing by wild horses

Politics and the emotional drama surrounding horse gathers aside, funds for removal and maintenance can’t keep up with the 

number of wild horses needing to be gathered. Without wild horse numbers being at AML in the majority of areas, sage 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-8 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

grouse habitat management cannot be accomplished in Nevada.

FIRE-Fuels, HABITAT RESTORATION

ISSUE: Economic and regulatory barriers for performing landscape sized habitat enhancement

Treatment of woodland or other vegetation areas in an amount beneficial to sage grouse is expensive because of the cultural

clearances needed and because of the hand labor / heavy machinery needed in some types such as the woodland. Regulatory 

cultural clearances, often subject to the approval of state SHPO’s, are needed on nearly every acre of a proposed treatment 

area which creates a bottleneck due to the gridded physical inventory required. Habitat enhancement projects of any size in 

other vegetation types suffer from the same problems. As a first step, if the federal cultural resource specialist ok’s a project, 

that needs to be good enough for the SHPO. I have 26 years of field experience with sage grouse habitat in the USFS and BLM, 

most at the journey level or above. I have 12 years USFS journey-level field experience during the ESA listing of the Mexican 

spotted owl along with the litigation before and after that listing.

19. Twenty-one Landscape Conservation Cooperatives are being established across the country by the USDI ‘to better integrate 

science and management to address climate change and related issues.’ The Great Basin LCC ‘will provide to a wide array of 

managers a range of scientific and technical support tools for landscape-scale conservation design.’ The steering committee 

will consist of twenty-four persons. Nineteen will be government or NGO employees, and five will be private 

representatives. Apparently those would be the five taxpayers who foot the bill for all the others.

The Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3110 designating selected lands as ‘Wild Lands,’ allowing the BLM to 

administrate them as wilderness areas. Now defunded by Congress, the Order circumvents the 2003 Norton-Leavitt 

Settlement prohibiting new Wilderness Study Areas.

All Both emc0087GB

20. Prior to 1981, when the surface rights regulations were enacted, you could mine or perform exploration activity on BLM 

administered land without obtaining a permit or posting a bond. In 1981, a project took only a few days or weeks to permit. 

Now 30 years later, to obtain an approved Plan of Operation that requires an Environmental Assessment requires in excess 

of $100,000 in baseline studies and up to or more than four years for studies and permitting. For an Environmental Impact 

Statement this time and cost is likely to be more than double. The permitting process has become onerous and fraught with 

unnecessary bureaucratic delays. The current regulatory climate is now at best difficult and at worst punitive. In addition, 

prior to 1981 there were no bonding costs. Now bonding costs are exorbitant. Between permitting and bonding, the costs 

and time associated with bringing a new orebody on line or even expansion of a continuing operation has become

horrendous. This has driven nearly all of the small miners out of business and left primarily the major mining companies who 

have availability to larger capital and staffing. Also, it has eliminated the ability to mine smaller or marginally economic

orebodies due to the time and cost involved with the permitting process. Over the past 30 years mining on BLM administered 

land as become highly regulated.

All Both emc0091GB

21. Putting these birds on the endangered list, brings to mind, could there be another way to study these birds?, without causing

such a divede amoug our many interested citizens. This listing will cause very bitter feelings between the many "distant 

dogooder groups" and the people who deal with the real problems of land management, each day of their life. Is this push for 

All Both emc0143GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-9

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

listing of the sage grouse a"land grab".

22. Native coyotes and especially non-native ravens are a far greater threat to the Sage Grouse than humans are. Ravens and 

coyotes eat the Sage Grouse eggs and prey on young Sage Grouse chicks. Rather than restricting or banning human use on 

private and public lands, a far better solution would be to reduce the raven and coyote populations. Placing a bounty on these 

predators and scavengers would be far cheaper and a much more effective solution to protecting the Sage Grouse 

populations.

All Both emc0144GB

23. Although BLM does not have control over state wildlife assets, it is your best interest to have a policy that strongly 

encourages state wildlife agencies to put a moratorium on sage grouse hunting for 5 years. A moratorium review should be 

conducted to determine success of such actions.

All Both emc0164GB

24. I believe that state wildlife agencies would be better suited to take the lead on sagegrouse management. All Both emc0167GB

25. Several years ago a study was done on the decline of the sage grouse in this area by the Fish and Game Department. The study 

determined that coyotes, ravens, crows and magpies were most likely the biggest threat to sage grouse population decline. 

They were going to implement a predator control program until Western Watersheds Project filed an injunction with the 

courts to have it stopped. It is my personal opinion that this was done not in the interest of preserving wildlife, but because 

it did not fit the WWP agenda of ending all grazing on public lands.

All Both emc0208GB

26. There are a few things that need to happen to help the sage grouse. One thing is the state governments in the areas affected 

by sage grouse need to stop having any hunting seasons , until the birds recover to where they should be. I am a hunter and 

have seen what has happened to them and if properly managed they would come back.

All Both emc0211GB

27. My last comment concerns fires on the INL. The INL is a valuable resource in terms of habitat and solidarity for the sage 

grouse. But in the last 10 years, fires have destroyed lots of the sage brush. Has any consideration been given to habitat 

restoration on the INL?

All Both emc0231GB

28. In addition there is no mention of non-native predators (Red Fox & Raccoon) and the devastation to Grouse that they have 

caused.

All Both cfc0006RM

29. There is no mention of the Grouse deliberately killed by hunting while working peoples livelihoods are severely affected. All Both cfc0006RM

30. Definitive research on the issue of predation by Common Ravens. We are aware of some research that has been done and 

also of much anecdotal evidence that the proliferation of Common Ravens in the Great Basin during the past half century has 

had a major impact on nesting success of Sage Grouse.

All Both emc0397GB

31. Based on this information we strongly recommend that in deriving valid decisions through NEPA analysis, that first BLM use 

any available local data. studies. maps and documented behavior patterns and or traits of the actual birds in this area as a base 

to all) dicision that would drive the RMP/LUP management guidelines for Sage Grouse. It is imperative therefore. that the data 

collected for years by our local Sage Grouse Working Group and DWR be recognized and given the highest level of 

credibility in this process.

All Both emc0410GB

32. We are encouraged that representatives from the land management agencies have consistently stated that the objective of 

the current planning efforts are to implement practices that will remove the sage grouse from the candidate species list. We 

All Both fxc0006GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-10 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

remain concerned that progress toward that objective may not be sufficient to dissuade the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service from proceeding with a threatened or endangered listing within the established timeframe. Further, such efforts could 

also be circumvented through litigation.

33. We understand the political pressure to maintain a limited sage grouse hunt but find the collection of data through this 

avenue statistically suspect. While the FWS has ranked hunting near the bottom of the list of Identified Threats to Greater 

Sage Grouse. the impact is not negligible and the cost of implementation is comparatively small

All Both fxc0006GB

34. Finally. as landowners that have made a great effort to improve our private lands, we should be rewarded for managing for 

many wildlife species rather than penalized. Riparian communities in the west are largely privately owned, and play a key role 

In the life cycle of sage grouse and every other living organism on our rangelands. Perhaps land managers could be rewarded 

for good management practices instead of being forced into regulations developed for inappropriate managers.

All Both fxc0010GB

35. I would first like to question the listing of this bird in Nevada. Sage grouse populations in Nevada are much higher then they 

were in presettlement days. The first explorers that crossed Nevada mentioned sage grouse minimally in their journals. The 

Indian's diet consisted mostly of roots and tubers, and the explorers had to eat their horses in order to survive when crossing 

Nevada. The sage grouse population then grew along with the sheep and cattle ranching population. Now population 

estimates range from 80,000 to 150,000 birds, many more birds than the first settlers encountered. The population has 

decreased but that does not mean that the bird is near extinction. Therefore, 1 encourage the BLM to argue this point with 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service and help them prove to Judge Winmill that there is no need to list this bird because its 

population is no where near extinct. This listing seems to be nothing more than an agency listing in order to gain control over 

mining, recreation, agriculture, private property rights and the BLM and other agencies that will be forced to adhere to more 

restrictive policies. This is proven by the fact that neither the US nor the Nevada Fish and Wildlife is including predator 

control or decreased hunting in trying to solve this problem. The BLM should fight this "necessary but precluded" label as wen 

as the actual listing.

All Both fxc0013GB

36. The greater sage-grouse should not be listed. Why list this bird as endangered when there are many thousands more birds 

then needed to maintain the USFWS's "minimum effective population size" of 5000 birds?

All Both fxc0013GB

37. Early 80's studies of collared grouse showed 75% of successful nesting hens were shot. Smaller broods and later season hunts 

led to the harvest of hens intended to be young grouse.

All Both cfc0011RM

38. Surface Disturbance the prairie dog transborders (ie moving, fence, human activity) are equal to mineral development. All Both cfc0020RM

39. What has the Douglas Range District done to make itself not so hostile, unprofessional to land owners i.e. incorrect mapping 

not following guideline as in the Thunder Basin Prairie Dog Management Plan.

All USFS cfc0020RM

40. An economically vigorous fur trade reduces the coyote population, which increases chick survival rate. All Both emc0013RM

41. Another thing that should be banned before cattle is hunting sage-grouse. There is no doubt that a man with a gun does more 

damage by killing the bird than a cow does just looking at it. If sage-grouse are close to being endangered why in the heck is 

there still an open hunt on them?

All Both cfc0068GB

42. The ESA has a dismal failure rate. Spending money is no object, and I object to my hard earned tax dollars being spent on such 

fluff as brochures and propaganda to force the listing of one more bird or animal

All Both emc0279GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-11

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

43. I REALIZE MONEY IS THE MASTER BUT COMMON SENSE SHOULD PREVAIL, and there seems to be unlimited funds for 

ESA.

All Both emc0279GB

44. NOW, let me chastise the above groups and this study. Your priorities are totally WRONG. In business we prioritize the 

must do, should do and may do and concentrate on the real issues keeping in business. You should be extending all resources 

towards the must do; such as Fire Mitigation associated with the Pine Beetle problem in Colorado and Wyoming. Your 

departments want private parties to cut dead trees and get rid of slash, but you do little. I am involved in a CWPP in Jackson

County and it is frustrating to watch our federal agencies lack of effort. So get all hands away from their WORD and 

PowerPoint studies and start cutting. All of the sage grouse will be gone if a

All Both emc0052RM

45. The FWS Findings4 found that a minimum effective population of up to 5,000 individuals will safeguard GSG from the 

long-term risk of extinction. The FWS Findings argue “a minimum effective population size must be 5,000 individuals to 

maintain evolutionary minimal viable populations of wildlife (retention of sufficient genetic material to avoid effect of 

inbreeding depression or deleterious mutations).” See FWS Findings,4 page 13959, 2nd column, 1st paragraph, underlined 

emphasis added. Given the lack of any published estimates establishing a more specific minimum effective population for GSG,

the FWS Findings conclude from the best scientific and commercial information available that “up to 5,000 individual 

sage-grouse may be necessary to maintain an effective population size of 500 birds...” and “the minimum viable population 

size necessary to sustain the evolutionary potential of a species... has been estimated as high as an adult population of 5,000 

individuals (Traill et al. 2010, p. 32).” See FWS Findings,4 page 13985, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, underlined emphasis added.

The FWS Findings establish lower minimum effective populations that put discrete GSG communities at risk of extirpation at 

localized or regional scales. The FWS found that geographically isolated sage-grouse populations “that fell below 50 breeding 

adults” were at risk for short-term extirpation, while populations “that fell below 500 breeding adults” were at risk for 

long-term extirpation. See FWS Findings,4 page 13959. Thus, the minimum effective population for GSG to maintain sufficient 

genetic material to protect the species from the long-term risk of extinction was found by the FWS to be as high as 5,000 

mature birds range-wide, while the minimum effective population to guard against extirpation of geographically isolated 

populations was found to be 500 breeding adults.

All Both emc0395GB

46. Table 4 of the FWS Findings reports GSG population estimates by state/region based upon 2002 to 2008 data. The estimated 

range-wide GSG population totals more than 535,000 birds. See FWS Findings,4 Table 4, page 13921. The total estimated 

current GSG population of more than 535,000 birds is 107 times greater than the minimum effective population (5,000 birds) 

that protects the species from the long-term risk of extinction, making it clear that GSG are far from being endangered with 

imminent extinction. Thus, GSG do not legally qualify for listing as “endangered” under the ESA. Instead, the FWS Findings 

engage in hand-wringing that presumed trends of declining populations, if continued, may threaten the species with extinction 

sometime in the future. If the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% annually (page 13922) 4 were 

to continue into the distant future, it would take 330 years for the estimated current GSG population to shrink to the 

minimum effective population of 5,000 birds. Speculating what might occur more than three centuries from now stretches 

way beyond the foreseeable future into the remote future. Thus, GSG are not in danger of extinction in the foreseeable 

future, so do not currently qualify for listing as “threatened” under the ESA.

All Both emc0395GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-12 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

47. I am strongly opposed to the Bear Ranch Land Swap. Mr. Koch’s organization claims that trading a few acres of land close to 

HWY 50 near Blue Mesa is beneficial for the sage grouse. However, in trade for a few acres there and other land in Utah they 

want to take access away from the public near the Gunnison National Forest (the BLM strip and adjacent land -1846 acres) 

and privatize it. Perhaps even run a train through the BLM strip if they get their land grab. One of the largest elk herds of CO 

is in the adjacent Gunnison National Forest. The BLM strip provides access for quiet users and people that are respectful of 

the habitat.

All Both emc0169RM

48. While FWS may engage in the proposed planning process as a regulator responsible for implementing the ESA, the agency 

should also participate as a land manager responsible for administrating key sage-grouse habitat. FWS currently manages 21 

refuge units, totaling more than two million acres, within the historic range of Greater Sage-grouse (see Appendix 4) (some 

refuges have more sagebrush habitat than others). Presently, many of these refuges are in the process of completing their 

comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) or reviewing existing plans for updates.

The value of these lands to sage-grouse recovery should not be overlooked, especially if refuge CCPs are appropriately 

amended, including to potentially expand existing refuge boundaries to protect additional sagebrush steppe. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd-668ee, as amended) directs the Secretary of Interior to “plan 

and direct the continued growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission of the System, to 

contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States, to complement efforts of States and other Federal 

agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to increase support for the System and participation from

conservation partners and the public” (16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd(a)(4)(C)). To support growth of the refuge system, the statute also 

provides the Secretary the authority to “[a]ccept donations of funds and to use such funds to acquire or manage lands or 

interests therein” and “[a]cquire lands or interests therein by exchange for acquired lands or public lands, or for interests in

acquired or public lands, under his jurisdiction which he finds to be suitable for disposition” (16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd(b)(2), (3)).

The Secretary could also designate new refuge units in the form of Legacy Conservation Areas like that established in the Flint 

Hills in Kansas (USFWS 2010). While not entirely regulatory in nature, establishing such areas could contribute to 

sage-grouse conservation by uniting public lands management goals with complimentary, federally funded initiatives on private 

land to conserve sage-grouse on mixed land ownerships (see e.g., NRCS 2011; NRCS 20097).

All Both emc0391GB

49. The federal government must consult with western states about their desired hunting seasons for sage-grouse. Recovering 

sage-grouse must include increasing populations to support sustainable harvest goals. The BLM and USFS should ensure that 

federal conservation planning supports western states annual harvest goals.

All Both emc0391RM

50. Pursuant to the Natural Gas Act, FERC approves all new interstate natural gas pipelines, and any expansions of existing 

interstate natural gas systems, by iss ing certificates of public convenience and necessity. The FERC process includes the 

consideration of effects to federal and state sensitive species. FERC certificates often include conditions requiring applicants 

to obtain permits from other federal, state, triba l, and/or local agencies before construction may begin. The time required to 

obtain these approvals and to coordinate with the various agencies has increased in recent years, undermining the 

predictability and timeliness of pipeline permitting.

All Both emc0278GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-13

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

51. Both legal hunting and illegal poaching may pose a threat to already declining sage-grouse populations. State wildlife agencies 

are currently charged with determining sustainable hunting limits for sage-grouse, which is generally based on the concept of 

compensatory and additive mortality. This theory presumes that hunting is not additive to overall grouse mortality and does 

not account for any additional reductions in population. The validity of the idea that hunting is a form of compensatory 

mortality for upland game birds has been questioned in recent years, and many recent studies suggest that hunting of upland 

game, including the greater sage-grouse is often not compensatory. Hunting levels based on the concept of compensatory 

mortality generally assume that overwinter mortality is high, which is not true for sage-grouse. The underlying assumptions 

of this theory, thus, may not correlate to sage-grouse as well as other species.

Additionally, state wildlife agencies currently aim to keep harvest levels below 5 to 10 percent of the population, based on 

recommendations from several prominent authors known for their writings about sage-grouse. However, it is unclear what 

the recommendation is based on and has not been directly studied or tested with regard to its actual impacts on sage-grouse 

populations. Although the Fish and Wildlife Service recently concluded that recreational hunting is not a significant threat to 

the species, nevertheless it is a source of direct mortality that combines with other impacts to negatively affect sage-grouse 

populations. There is very little relevant information regarding the impacts of poaching or illegal hunting on sage-grouse 

populations. While we know that an increase in human access often leads to an increase in poaching, it is unclear whether the 

effects on sage-grouse are significant. This is a reasonably foreseeable impact deserving of more study.

All Both emc0276GB

52. In reference to the Joanah Field, the BLM had total disregard for all wildlife and the effects of habitat and water and air 

pollution. The need to start extracting with minimal impact, this includes coal mining, rock mining, mineral and natural gas.

All Both rmc0001RM

53. EISs and SEISs should recognize the importance of predation to grouse numbers and provide adequate authority and flexibility 

to local land managers to use all available control methods.

All Both emc0284GB

54. 5. page 12, Recreation.

The annual hunting or harvest season of sage-grouse by recreationalists should be terminated. Scientific rhetoric exists that 

shows annual bird hunting does not impact sage-grouse numbers; but, just one sage-grouse hen taken or harvested equates 

to the loss of seven to twentyone chicks. This is based on the average life span of sage-grouse of three years and the average 

clutch of seven eggs per successful nesting.

All Both emc0289GB

55. We pray that your attention will be on the predation problem. The sage grouse are preyed upon by coyotes and ravens. Both 

of which are extremely numerous. Maybe we can have incentives for the public to hunt these predators. Maybe we can 

expand our government trapping programs rather then decrease them as we have been.

All Both emc0293GB

56. BLM is on the edge of making the same errors that occurred with the Northern Spotted Owl. The listing decision and 

subsequent designation of critical habitat for the spotted owl destroyed the logging and sawmill industries for three states 

based on the premise that logging of old growth timber was causing the decline of spotted owl populations. Comments 

submitted in 1989 on the listing decision suggested that predation by the barred owl was causing undetermined levels of 

mortality but this was brushed aside. Twenty years later, much of the designated critical habitat has burned, taking the old

growth habitat and the owls with it. Notwithstanding no logging for 20 years, the spotted owl status is unchanged. Now DOI 

proposes to shoot barred owls given the rates of predation on the remaining spotted owls, 77 Fed. Reg. 14036 (Mar. 9, 2012), 

All Both emc0371GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-14 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

while doubling the critical habitat that will be closed to logging, 77 Fed. Reg. 14062 (Mar. 8, 2012); c.f. 77 Fed. Reg. 12985 

(Presidential memorandum directing USFWS to consider economic impacts, including some logging in the expanded critical 

habitat).

57. Since 2008, WLC has performed three intensive biological field surveys and no evidence or sign of sage-grouse has been 

identified on our project site. These surveys were performed by a third-party environmental consulting firm by qualified 

scientists. In addition, WLC's geologists and environmental staff have also visited the site on a regular basis since 2008, and the 

presence of sage grouse within the project area and immediate vicinity has never been documented. However, according to 

NDOW's Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Categorization Map, the immediate vicinity of our project area is designated as 

"Essential/Irreplaceable Habitat". Because evidence of sage grouse has not been found on our site, WLC questions the 

accuracy of the published maps. Please identify what information was utilized to determine the boundary of the 

"essential/irreplaceable habitat". Please identify if the Sage-grouse Habitat Categorization map can be revised to more 

accurately reflect actual site conditions. Please define "essential/irreplaceable habitat" and "habitat of moderate importance" 

and what is allowed and restricted within these designations. In addition, we also assume that drawing boundaries on maps is 

sometimes a very subjective decision. Are these "irreplaceable habitat" area decisions reviewed internally to very accuracy? 

Are these discretionary decisions?

WLC has a concern that regulatory agencies (e.g., BLM and NDOW) will use the Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Categorization 

Map at a project-level scale and will use the maps (and the identified boundaries) to set policies and as a basis for decision 

making. Although NDOW clearly states on their web site that the maps should not be used at a project-level scale, BLM and 

NDOW are likely to impose strict mitigation measures and possibly restrict an applicant's use of public land based on the 

identified boundaries shown on the Categorization Map.

All Both rmc0068GB

58. Analyze the financial impacts/burdens on the nation's budget of the petition process under the Endangered Species Act as 

related. To the Greater SageGrouse. (This wou,ld include mandates for changes to Land Use Plans and all the pertinent 

actions required for successful completion.)

All Both rmc0055GB

59. According to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioner's report in August 2011, an estimated 6.3% of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse in Nevada were harvested in 2009. From 2004-2008, the fall harvest average was 3.52%. NV Energy requests 

that hunting, as well as all other land uses that have the potential to impact sage grouse, be fully considered in the EIS.

All Both rmc0049GB

60. The BLM should fight this "necessary but precluded" label as well as the actual listing. All Both fxc0013GB

61. The greater sage-grouse should not be listed. Why list this bird as endangered when there are many thousands more birds 

then needed to maintain the USFWS's "minimum effective population size" of 5000 birds?

All Both fxc0013GB

62. Please accept this fax as my fonnal complaint of disapproval for any and all changes in grazing practices as a result of a potential 

listing of the Sage Grouse as threatened or endangered. To list the Sage Grouse as either would be in direct violation of the 

endangered species act as actual numbers of live birds far exceed the numbers required to trigger listing in either category

All Both fxc0017GB

63. The recommendations made by fish and wild life as to the amount of standing grass needed to camouflage the birds is 

ridiculous and unattainable

All Both fxc0017GB

64. The minimum effective population for greater sage-grouse to protect the species from the longterm risk of extinction All Both emc0409Gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-15

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

range-wide has been determined by the FWS to be 5,000 mature birds, while the minimum effective population on a regional 

scale has been determined to be 500 breeding adults. See FWS Findings (footnote 4) at pages 13959 and 13985. The proposed 

EIS process must analyze the current population level in relationship to the minimum effective population. The current 

estimated population for greater sage-grouse is between 350,000 and 535,000 birds, which is 70 to 107 times greater than the 

"minimum effective population" of 5,000 birds. See FWS Findings (footnote 4) at page 13921. In fact, given the estimated 

contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% per year (see FWS Findings (footnote 4) at page 13922), it would take 

300 to 330 years for the estimated current greater sage-grouse population to dwindle to the minimum effective population 

of 5,000 birds. Clearly, the greater sage-grouse is not endangered with imminent extinction, and it is unreasonable to 

conclude that the species is threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future, so there is no reason to list the greater 

sage-grouse as “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA.

65. These negative economic impacts are unnecessary and the conservation measures you propose are unwarranted because the 

greater sage-grouse is not legally qualified for listing as "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. The 

NOI alleges that the purpose of the proposed project is to "avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act" by the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) states that the purpose of the Act is to "provide a 

means whereby ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.." (see ESA, 

Purposes). Since this purpose applies only to ecosystems "upon which endangered species and threatened species depend" a 

finding that a species is endangered or threatened must occur before the ecosystem that supports the species falls under the 

purview of the Act. By definition under the ESA, an "endangered species" is "any species which is in danger of extinction" and 

a "threatened species" is "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.." (see 

ESA, Definitions). Thus, under the ESA, a species can only be listed as "endangered" if it faces imminent extinction, or as 

"threatened" if it is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future.

The minimum effective population for greater sage-grouse to protect the species from the long-term risk of extinction 

range-wide was found by the FWS to be as high as 5,000 mature birds, while the minimum effective population on a regional 

scale was found to be 500 breeding adults. See FWS Findings, 3 pages 13959 and 13985. The current estimated population for 

greater sage-grouse is between 350,000 and 535,000 birds, which is 70 to 107 times greater than the minimum effective 

population of 5,000 birds. See FWS Findings,3 page 13921. In fact, given the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of 

decline of 1.4% per year (see FWS Findings,3 page 13922), it would take 300 to 330 years for the estimated current greater 

sage-grouse population to dwindle to the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds. Speculating about what might occur 

three centuries from now reaches into the remote future, well beyond the foreseeable future. The greater sage-grouse is not 

faced with imminent extinction or extinction in the foreseeable future, so is not legally qualified to be listed as either 

"endangered" or "threatened" under the ESA.

Existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and National Conservation Areas likely already support 

more than 5,000 GSG and sufficient high quality habitat to support them. These nationally designated areas are already 

managed under special regulatory mechanisms that in many instances mirror the proposed mechanisms that current 

sage-grouse planning strategies recommend for conservation of the species and its habitat. If so, there is no need to 

implement additional conservation measures anywhere else in the GSG’s occupied range because its numbers and population 

All Both emc0402GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-16 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

trends in these nationally designated areas already supply sustainable populations and habitats to meet or exceed the 

minimum effective population, thereby safeguarding the species against the risk of extinction.

66. In view of new information brought to my attention I believe there may be a fundamental question concerning the legitimacy 

of qualifying greater sage-grouse for listing consideration under ESA based upon USFWS estimated existing population 

citations (between 350,000 and 535,000 birds) and USFWS estimated rate of decline citations (1.4% per year) versus the 

minimum effective population for greater sage‐grouse needed to protect the species from the long‐term risk of extinction 

range‐wide as determined by the USFWS to be 5,000 mature birds. (Reference the attached authored by Western Range 

Service).

All Both emc0373GB

67. The NOI and the National Strategy were noticed for comment. In fact, with respect to the National Strategy, individuals, state 

agencies, industry and interest groups concerned with sage-grouse conservation submitted an extensive amount of 

information during that comment period. In contrast, the IMs were effective upon issuance and were not noticed for 

comment. Prior to the issuance of the December 2011 IMs, AWEA suggested to BLM that the policies set forth in those 

documents should not be established through the issuance of IMs but rather evaluated through a notice-and-comment 

process14 as they would determine the outcomes of the RMPs at issue in the NOI. In other words, the policies that will drive 

and frame the actual conservation measures have already been determined without an opportunity to comment on them. 

BLM has never provided an explanation as to why IMs, which add substantive requirements to the National Strategy and the 

NOI should not be similarly noticed for comment. As we explain further below, we reiterate that failure to notice the Ims for 

comment was a violation of the APA.

All Both emc0344GB

68. Many grazing decisions that remain the underlying basis for current management never had any real NEPA conducted on 

them. For example, DNAs and “Plan Conformances” with the old MFP is the only NEPA coverage for nearly all the Montana 

Mountain Lone Willow PMU lands. Or they were subject to only minimal EA analysis where often false claims of 

non-significant impacts were made about disturbance impacts. So there has been no honest detailed analysis of adverse direct, 

indirect and cumulative impacts of grazing, and no valid hard look taken at a range of alternatives. This continues up to the

present. For example, Ely BLM has issued separate, piecemeal Eas staggered over time for several permittees in large 

allotments like Duckwater. Each treats the grazing of one permittee as separate from all other. The analyses brush over the 

degree of ecological degradation that is occurring, and how severe or significant this degradation may be.

All Both emc0411GB

69. BLM goes to great lengths to avoid addressing livestock grazing impacts and changing allocations at all even in the context of 

preventing spread of invasive species. Here is an example of how BLM has been operating to shirk its obligation to conduct 

adequate environmental analysis and address and control invasive species impairment of the public lands. BLM conducted a 

Weed EIS Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic EIS finalized in 2007. Throughout this process, WWP and other environmental groups asked that BLM address 

grazing and make significant changes in livestock grazing and other land use allocations to deal with expanding invasive species

threats. We emphasized that BLM must address the causes of weed invasion. But we were told repeatedly by BLM Weed EIS 

lead Brian Amme that No, the Weed EIS would not do that. Addressing livestock grazing and stocking was an allocation and 

that was done at the Land Use Plan level. So BLM’s weed EIS only focused on NEPA analysis of herbicides. It also ignored 

NEPA analysis of its plans to impose massive treatment disturbance through fire/fuels projects across millions of acres laid out 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-17

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in a parallel document Draft Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Report (PER). The PER was never analyzed under NEPA. BLM refused to address the causes of 

weed invasion. BLM also ignored analysis of a citizens’ alternative and science-based recommendations to integrate passive 

restoration with some active management to address causes and restore weed-invaded sites. BLM proceeded to implement 

a battery of vegetation treatments described but never analyzed under NEPA in its PER report. No integrated controls on 

livestock as weed vectors and grazing as a cause of weed infestation and spread have been applied, nor has any overall analysis 

of the massive treatment disturbance’s weed-promoting effects.

Sage-grouse habitats have since suffered weed invasions. The expensive fire and fuels treatments that have degraded and 

altered sage-grouse habitats have, predictably, often become infested with extensive cheatgrass invasion that is exacerbated 

by chronic livestock grazing disturbance. Examples; Ely BLM Cherry Creek, Austin Fuelbreaks, Elko Owyhee border 

Fuelbreaks, Spring Valley Veg Treatments, etc

70. While parrying environmental group concerns with its Weed EIS ignoring weed-promoting allocations, the BLM all the while 

was developing Land Use Plans that did not deal with grazing use allocations in any substantial way whatsoever. BLM did not 

make any real changes at all in livestock grazing allocations or land areas open to/suitable for grazing use. For example, in 

2007-2008, BLM signed Records of Decision for the long-anticipated Ely RMP and several other controversial RMPs as well. 

These RMPs, rather than examining livestock grazing disturbance as a causal factor of weed invasion and much other 

degradation, and then making significant reductions in allocations under the Land Use Plan, just continued the status quo. 

There was no effort to reduce livestock stocking rates that promote disturbance and cause invasive species invasion and 

spread, or to assess risk and threats of weed invasion and determining that sagebrush lands at high risk of weed invasion were 

unsuitable for continued grazing use. BLM merely kept the allocation the same, and found nearly all lands continued to be 

suitable for imposition of grazing disturbance. The allocation was that all lands remain open to grazing - with status quo AUMs 

on the books until later analysis. So virtually the entire land area of critically important sage-grouse habitats in these RMPs was 

open to livestock disturbance (and often multiple overlapping disturbances of both sheep and cattle grazed in the same land 

area).There was also no adequate scientific baseline provided for these RMPs related to livestock grazing and ecological 

conditions, carrying capacity, or other factors in the first place. BLM just rubberstamped the AUMs forward, and kept 

everything Open to grazing.

All Both emc0411GB

71. The Ely RMP deferred any livestock reductions until later FRH processes. From 2009, up until 2012, Ely BLM has proceeded 

to issue livestock grazing decisions based on FRH processes and watershed assessments that overwhelmingly claim trees and 

horses are the causes of land health problems, and turn a blind eye to livestock degradation. These fail to fully and fairly 

separate out current and cumulative livestock grazing disturbance impacts, impacts of horses vs. cattle vs. sheep, impacts of 

multiple permittees grazing in the same landscape, etc. In its grazing EAs and FRH processes, BLM typically claims that current 

grazing is not environmentally significant. Only if there is severe damage, BLM might admit livestock are a cause. Then, the 

primary changes made are shifting livestock use a bit (actions resembling the weak near-status quo NTT grazing provisions) 

or more sagebrush treatment and tree removal. BLM minimizes any need for on-the-ground grazing AUM reductions by 

pointing back to the allocation of the land for livestock grazing in the RMP to justify status quo, or near status quo grazing, and 

allow stocking at levels often far above the actual use that has been occurring. Rarely if ever are AUMs significantly reduced. 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-18 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

In the few instances where any reductions are made livestock are often not reduced to levels of average actual use (the 

average number that has been grazed in recent decades which is often far below the number on the permit). At the time of 

the RMP, Ely already knew that the AUMs on permits (which was the allocation carried forward in the RMP) far exceeded 

levels being grazed under Actual Use. Ely churns out grazing decisions permittee by permittee in a staggered and piecemeal 

fashion -even in instances where there may be 7 or 8 permittees in the same allotment land area, grazing sheep on top of 

cattle or vice versa. And often analysis of impacts of the Proposed Action are based not on the number of livestock actually 

being grazed, but instead under the assumption that the full permitted number on paper have caused the damage. Not only 

must the Ely and other RMPs be amended, all the harmful Decisions issued under these RMPs must be scrutinized and revised 

immediately under this

sage-grouse process.

72. Agencies routinely minimize the level of environmental analysis conducted - and this continues up until March 2012. For 

example, the Owyhee BLM is proposing to analyze the impacts of livestock grazing across several allotments spanning over a 

quarter million acres. These allotments include very important sage-grouse habitats that are being highly degraded by 

livestock grazing and trampling that is promoting weeds. But the BLM is Scoping these as a single meager EA. The Scoping 

actions described are reminiscent of livestock industry proposals from 25 years ago. The problem is NOT the lack of 

information. The problem is BLM refusing to deal honestly with land uses like public lands ranching. See USDI BLM Garat, 

Castlehead Lamber. In Garat, for example, BLM is proposing to graze livestock at numbers greatly above the levels of actual 

grazing use that Priority habitats and occupied General habitats.

All Both emc0411GB

73. Jarbidge, Ely Westside, Bridgeport, Martin Basin (Santa Rosa) and other Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest EIS’s Are Symptomatic of 

Agency Failures

In 2008-2009, the Forest after several years finalized a Jarbidge Rangeland EIS that was based on a theory of “herbivory” as 

laid out in a pamphlet by Dietz. This pamphlet was derived from the Nebraska greenhouse studies of Crider –Take Half, 

Leave Half. The Forest’s EIS view overwhelmingly focused on “herbivory” and a very narrow view even of that. It pervaded 

a series of Rangeland EIS processes that started circa 2004-2005 up through 2011. This same long-obsolete view of the 

impacts of livestock grazing drove other Rangeland EISs (the Martin Basin EIS in the Santa Rosa region, the now-retracted Ely 

Westside Rangeland EIS, the retracted Bridgeport EIS, and the Mountain City EIS that was aborted after the Forest had 

agreed to consider an alternative developed by WWP with the Forest’s assistance). Despite being presented with large 

volumes of information on the adverse impacts of livestock grazing an all components of the sagebrush ecosystem, and 

sage-grouse and other wildlife habitats, and adverse impacts of livestock grazing and livestock facilities like fencing and West 

Nile virus-promoting water troughs, the Forest has proceeded up through the present, in this same livestock industry range 

myth-based analysis.

All Both emc0411GB

74. I oppose cheap energy at great cost to the environment. We need the incentive to conserve All Both fld0005rm, 

fld0005gb

75. I also oppose public subsidization of the meat industry, whether in direct payments to corn and soy farmers, or in lax 

environmental regulation.

All Both fld0005rm, 

fld0005gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-19

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

76. Sage brush grows in some of the most inhospitable environments this country offers. Encroachment be other species of trees 

like Juniper and some Pine species change the environment enough that the sage brush will suffer and often recede. 

Management of the other species would enhance the ability of the sage brush to flourish.

Please consider the following:

Where necessary, make unwanted species available to uses such as firewood or other uses where the public would be 

encouraged to come and remove them without restriction.

CO BLM emc0067RM

77. Even more ironic is the fact that Colorado still has a hunting season for sage grouse; hence, we question whether draconian 

conservation measures are warranted.

CO Both emc0143RM

78. Here are a few assaults by other human that kill sagehens, all intentional. Some people shoot them with shotguns, rifles, pellet 

guns, bb-guns, bow and arrows, crossbows, and even slingshots. Since they are heavy breasted and would rather walk than fly, 

some people want to eat their meaty breasts and use the birds as easy targets. Crafty falconers turn their pet birds on 

sagehens for practice in the isolated areas.

CO Both rmc0016RM

79. Year around cars run over or hit sagehens when they fly low over roads. In the spring, people spray their food with chemicals

intended to kill weeds, sagebrush, willows, insects or to help make hay grow. Private vehicles, four wheelers, and livestock 

smash nests and young when they crouch for protection.

In the summers, haybinds, and mowing machines often sever the legs as birds hide in tall hay in meadows with shy young. 

People on snowmobiles chase then during the dead of winter chasing birds from place to place since sagehens don't fly far 

when spooked. This human fun stresses the birds in the frigid cold sometimes causing death.

CO Both rmc0016RM

80. All year long roaming pet dogs and cats kill eggs, young, and adults often times not even eating them. CO Both rmc0016RM

81. Some ranch employees blast sage hens every time they see one for food to help feed their families. Its sure illegal, but a few 

WCO can't catch them in such a big area.

CO Both rmc0016RM

82. While the impacts of other users, both positive and negative, are peripheral to our operations, the costs of mitigation 

measures are of great concern. Our ratepayers grow weary of bearing the vast majority of the cost of salmon and steelhead 

mitigation while sportsmen and commercial fishing contribute very little to species recovery.

GB Both rmc0056GB

83. My family has entered into a multi-year Conservation Program Contract with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service for the Idaho Sage-Grouse Initiative restricting use of our land to improve or maintain the quantity and quality of food 

and/or cover for sage-grouse. It is inconceivable to me that one federal agency (USDA-NRCS) would be so diligent to prevent 

the listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse while other agencies are entertaining the Gateway West Transmission Line proposal 

(application across federal lands in multiple western states coordinated by BLM) to authorize occupancy of adjacent and 

nearby federal lands for uses that would locate substantial structures and necessary staging sites, access roads, etc. in critical 

sage-grouse habitat, thereby permanently displacing the sage-grouse.

IDMT Both rmc0071GB

84. One of the alternative routes of the proposed Gateway West line would locate a section of line and one or more towers on 

our private property, which is adjacent to National Forest Service System Lands. Siting of such massive structures and related 

infrastructure along with introduction of invasive species (which can never be totally mitigated) through ground disturbance 

IDMT Both rmc0071GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-20 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and wildfire which would be increased due to construction and monitoring improvements via vehicle access constitute the 

three top threats to the greater sage-grouse. As BLM spokeswoman JoLynn Worley stated, " ... any disturbance on lands 

where there are sage grouse leks or what we are identifying as preliminary priority habitat for sage grouse can pose a threat."

85. We have entered into a multi-year Conservation Program Contract with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 

for the Idaho Sage-Grouse Initiative restricting use of our land to improve or maintain the quantity and quality of food and/or 

cover for sage-grouse. It is inconceivable to us that one federal agency (USDA-NRCS) would be so diligent to prevent the 

listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse while other agencies are entertaining the Gateway West Transmission Line proposal 

(application across federal lands in multiple western states coordinated by BLM) to authorize occupancy of adjacent and 

nearby federal lands for uses that would locate substantial structures and necessary staging sites, access roads, etc. in critical 

sage-grouse habitat, thereby permanently displacing the sage-grouse.

IDMT Both rmc0072rm

86. One of the alternative routes of the proposed Gateway West line would locate a section of line and one or more towers on 

our private property, which is adjacent to National Forest Service System Lands. Siting of such massive structures and related 

infrastructure along with introduction of invasive species (which can never be totally mitigated) through ground disturbance 

and wildfire which would be increased due to construction and monitoring improvements via vehicle access constitute the 

three top threats to the greater sage-grouse. As BLM spokeswoman JoLynn Worley stated, " ... any disturbance on lands 

where there are sage grouse leks or what we are identifying as preliminary priority habitat for sage grouse can pose a threat."

IDMT Both rmc0072rm

87. We have a small population in the Dillon area that could be very negatively impacted by the proposed MSTI power line. IDMT Both flb0046gb

88. On Coyote Ridge, near San Jose, California, a biologist studying the Bay checkerspot butterfly noticed that wherever the 

cattle were removed, the butterflies left, too. He discovered that without grazing, the range was taken over by Italian rye 

grass, which choked out the native plantains that the butterflies ate. Fortunately, people listened to him, and today 

conservation efforts on Coyote Ridge include grazing plans to preserve butterfly habitat (Nash 2009).

MT-RM Both emc0013RM

89. When the Nature Conservancy took over the Matador Ranch in Phillips County, they immediately cut back on grazing. The 

result was that they lost their longbilled curlews. These birds depend on sparse grass for nesting and cow manure for foraging 

and camouflage. When the Nature Conservancy increased grazing pressure, the curlews came back. (Pers comm Linda Poole, 

Phillips County.)

MT-RM Both emc0013RM

90. Anti-grazing bias has been especially harmful to native fish populations.

1.3.1.1 The Spikedace of the Verde River

On the upper Verde River in Arizona, the US Forest Service removed cattle grazing to protect the habitat of a desert 

minnow, the spikedace. With the cattle gone, the vegetation changed. This altered the hydrology of the river. The Forest 

Service took a river ecosystem that was 80% native fish and turned it into an ecosystem with 20% native fish (Daggett 2008, 

p. 54). No spikedace has been found there since the cattle were removed. (Dagget 2005, p. 45).

1.3.1.2 Dalhousie Springs

Kodric-Brown et al. (2007) document the extirpation of 18 fish populations in Dalhousie Springs, Australia, after the removal 

MT-RM Both emc0013RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-21

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of feral donkeys and camels. 

1.3.1.3 Ash Meadows

Kodric-Brown and Brown (2009) document the extinction of a pupfish population in an Ash Meadows desert spring that was 

altered when feral horses were fenced out.

91. Protection can be extremely dangerous for rare species. The Czechs had beautiful, rare orchid species in forest meadows. 

They protected them from human impact, the yearly hand scything for hay that had been happening there for centuries. Once 

the orchids were protected, the trees expanded into the meadows and the orchids all went extinct. In Ash Meadows in the 

United States and Dalhousie in Australia, rare desert spring fish were protected from livestock. Once the fish were 

protected, the desert springs were overgrown and became wet meadows instead of pools. The fish were not able to live out 

of water, and 19 populations went extinct (Kodric-Brown & Brown. 2007. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5(10): 549- 553.)

MT-RM Both emc0023RM

92. Finally. as landowners that have made a great effort to improve our private lands, we should be rewarded for managing for 

many wildlife species rather than penalized. Riparian communities in the west are largely privately owned, and play a key role 

In the life cycle of sage grouse and every other living organism on our rangelands. Perhaps land managers could be rewarded 

for good management practices instead of being forced into regulations developed for inappropriate managers.

NVCA Both fxc0010GB

93. With that being said public land grazers are extremely concerned about the impact the above referenced Notice of Intent will 

have on the range livestock industry in Nevada.

NVCA Both emc0304GB

94. As proponents for the Proposed Action to implement new sage-grouse conservation measures, BLM and USFS must comply 

with the above-cited Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") regulations. These regulations apply universally - regardless 

of whether the EIS evaluates a private-sector Proposed Action or an agency-driven Proposed Action. The current map does 

not satisfy the CEQ regulations pertaining to data quality or accuracy.

When NVMRA member companies submit a Plan of Operations for a proposed mineral exploration project to BLM and 

USFS, the agencies typically require NVMRA member companies to retain qualified biologists to perfonn on-the-ground 

wildlife surveys of our project areas to identify habitat areas for sage-grouse and other wildlife species. The agencies use this 

infonnation to prepare the NEP A documents required to evaluate the impacts of our proposed activities. We would never 

be allowed to provide decade-old satellite imagery data - even to provide a generalized overview of habitat conditions - to 

satisfy the agencies' requirements for wildlife baseline data for the NEPA analysis.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

95. I would first like to question the listing of this bird in Nevada. Sage grouse populations in Nevada are much higher then they 

were in pre-settlement days. The first explorers that crossed Nevada mentioned sage grouse minimally in their journals. The 

Indian's diet consisted mostly of roots and tubers, and the explorers had to eat their horses in order to survive when crossing 

Nevada. The sage grouse population then grew along with the sheep and cattle ranching population. Now population 

estimates range from 80,000 to 150,000 birds, many more birds than the first settlers encountered. The population has 

decreased but that does not mean that the bird is near extinction. Therefore, I encourage the BLM to argue this point with 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service and help them prove to Judge Winmill that there is no need to list this bird because its 

population is no where near extinct

NVCA Both fxc0013GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-22 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

96. This listing seems to be nothing more than an agency listing in order to gain control over mining, recreation, agriculture, 

private property rights and the BLM and other agencies that will be forced to adhere to more restrictive policies. This is 

proven by the fact that neither the US nor the Nevada Fish and Wildlife is including predator control or decreased hunting in

trying to solve this problem.

NVCA Both fxc0013GB

97. Finally. as landowners that have made a great effort to improve our private lands, we should be rewarded for managing for 

many wildlife species rather than penalized. Riparian communities in the west are largely privately owned, and playa key role 

In the life cycle of sage grouse and every other living organism on our rangelands. Perhaps land managers could be rewarded 

for good management practices instead of being forced into regulations developed for inappropriate managers.

NVCA Both fxc0010gb

98. If sage hen may be listed as an endangered species, why are they still being hunted? NVCA Both fxc0014GB

99. The old timers talk about how there were lots of sage grouse when there were high numbers of livestock and high predator 

control. The Sage Grouse Production and Mortality Studies released by NDOW in 1988, Project W-48-R-21 states 'There 

has been a continual decline in sage grouse numbers across Nevada for the past 30 years." The summary goes on to say that, 

"Ravens were determined to be the greatest predator with the dummy nest losses of 39% occurring in 'good Sage Grouse 

habitut"'. The summary also states that, "magpies, badgers, and even ground squirrels prayed on eggs."

NVCA Both fxc0014GB

100. A separate study done in 1942 by game researcher Warren Allred found in Wyoming that "89% of all sage grouse nest were 

being destroyed by predators-of which 23% were attributed to ravens and 14% to coyotes." It has been said at meetings that 

sage grouse numbers peaked in the 1950's, but people have disputed. That predator contol was a factor by saying that there 

is no real scientific data to prove this. Even though the poison 1080 and government trapping was used extensively for 

predator control in the 1950's and 60's. These meetings also showed that predation was not thought to be a real problem. It 

was stated that ravens and other birds eat 50% of the eggs. It was further stated that the eggs that did survive into chicks later 

died, because there wasn't any "good" habitat for them to survive in.

NVCA Both fxc0014GB

101. Dr. Peter Coates, a wildlife biologist from the USGS also proved that ravens destroy a lot of sage grouse nests. Although he 

went on to say:

1. If the habitat was 'good' the ravens couldn't get the eggs, but again NDOW's 1988 Project W-48-R-21 showed that wasn't 

the case. Maybe this is because as Dr. Coates mentioned, ravens in the avian world, are comparable to chimpanzees in 

intelligence and so the ravens wilI find nests even in 'good' habitat.

2. He also said predation efforts were made on ravens one year and the next year more ravens came back, but when we 

looked at his 2004 'The Effects of Raven Removal on Sage Grouse Nest Success paper he notes that, "due to the time lag 

between the beginning and completion of restoring sagebrush stepp communities and the rapidly declining rate of sage grouse 

abundance, it may be important to incorporate raven damage management activities for endangered populations until habitat 

quality is sufficient at concealing nests from predators." From this statement he shows that predator control is necessary. 

Should predation efforts on ravens be carried out 3 to 4 more years to really determine if more ravens come back?

NVCA Both fxc0014GB

102. In response to BLM's recent scoping and infonnation meetings for the 10 Resource Management Plans (RMPs) within 4 BLM 

districts in Oregon, the Department encourages BLM to incorporate, at a minimum, the sage-grouse conservation guidelines

OR Both emc0088GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-23

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

General Comments Outside the Scope of the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

identified in the April 2011 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (GSCAS).

103. Nice flat open areas in thin sagebrush or grassy knolls that have been used by sage grouse for millions of years to strut and

boom, but are now sites for house trailers, corrals, or water wells. The Jackson County sheds now sits on such a big lek site 

where sagehens boomed until it was built taking away another of the many breeding area. Along Ughtning Ridge is another 

such site.

OR Both rmc0016RM

104. In Oregon we are particularly interested in the population of Golden Eagles that are currently gaining a foothold in the area 

of the wind farm being built in the Bend/Redmond area. We feel there are modifications that could be made to accommodate 

NOT having to bludgeon wildlife to death. This will include our Silver Hair Bat that is near extinction.

OR Both fla0106gb

105. My recommendation would to stop hunting the sage grouse on the Aquarius Plateau and use this population as a brood to 

transplant and increase populations in other areas, as this was successfully done in 2004 to 2008 in a transplant from Parker 

Mountain to the Strawberry valley in northern Utah.

UT Both rmc0062gb

106. I don't see a need for federal control or regulations to manage sage grouse in the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. I believe 

the state should have control over it's wildlife and management of species. Federal regulations are not needed or wanted in 

Weston County.

WY Both cfc0027RM

107. 2. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has the personnel, the expertise and ability to manage - sage grouse in the State 

of Wyoming. Additionally, the Wyoming Game and Fish is charged with the responsibility to do this, not a Federal agency.

WY Both cfc0030RM

108. Hunting is not an issue in the USRBCA at this time. Much of the suitable habitat in the Jackson Hole area lies in Grand Teton 

National Park and the National Elk Refuge and has been closed to hunting since their establishment. The remainder of the 

area has been closed to all sage-grouse hunting since 2000 to protect these small isolated populations

WY USFS emc0144RM

109. Limit plans and actions to nothing more and nothing less than the Wyoming Governors Executive Order. WY Both emc0176RM

110. Since there is no known nor proven method to control expansion of large numbers of prairie dogs upon the sage grouse 

habitat within the Category 1 boundary except rodenticide. I propose that you change the policy on the use at rodenticide. 

It’s the only proven method tor protection ", habitat for the sage grouse. Least of all, our tax dollars should not be wasted

upon experimental type, 01 control for the prairie dogs who encroach upon habitat where they are not desired. Prairie dogs 

are aggressive and expand their territory and ultimately destroy habitat used many other species, They do have their own 

obligate species which follow their use and expansion patterns, which seem to do well by following the prairie dogs. Their 

own ability 10 expand very quickly into vast amounts of acreage by its own definition insures they will then the plague cannot 

keep their numbers low for an appreciable amount of time. The United States never be short prairie dogs for the enjoyment 

of many folks. However, the sage grouse is adversely affected by loss of habitat resulting from the inhabitation and decimation 

of their habitat by prairie dogs, These two species cannot coexist.

WY Both rmc0043RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-24 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. The issue of hunting a candidate (or endangered) species needs to be addressed and analyzed in the EIS. Will these priority 

habitat areas become de facto hunting preserves, since there is still a hunting season on these birds?

All Both rmc0027GB

2. If the BLM is concerned about Sage Grouse Populations why do they allow sport hunting to continue? All BLM rmc0041GB

3. We are loosing the sage-grouse species for one reason they are being killed by humans. Any effective strategy will reduce 

the opportunity for humans to harass and kill these birds. Roads should be closed to major sage-grouse habitat. Signs should 

be erected that discourage hunting. ORVs disturb the birds. The BLM and USFS should erect signs (and monitor use) that tell 

people ORV use is discouraged.

All Both emc0016GB

4. THIS IS THE SAME AGENCY THAT IS SABOTAGING AND KILLING EVERY SINGLE WILD HORSE IN AMERICA. 

SENDING TIIEM TO SLAUGHTERHOUSES, TAKING THEM OFF THE RANGE THEY HAVE LIVED ON ALL THEIR LIVES, 

AND HOUSING THEM SO TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY TO FEED THEM. THOSE HORSES WERE KEEPIGN 

THEMSELVES QUITE FINE ON THE LAND BELONGGING TO NATIONAL TAXPAYERS BUT THIS VENAL, VICIOUS 

AGENCY CALLED BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WANTS TO GIE THAT LAND OVER TO CATTLE RANCHERS 

WHO PAY $5.00 AN ACRE PER YEAR TO DESTROY THE LAND.

All BLM emc0020GB

5. THE LAND IS DESTROYED BY CATTLE. THE PLANS OF THIS AGENCY NEED TO BE SCRUTINIZED MUCH MORE 

CLOSELY THAN THEY ARE. THIS AGENCY IS GETTING AWAY WITH WHOLESALE WILDLIFE MURDER.

All BLM emc0020GB

6. The endangered species law is being used to gain control over landscapes and seascapes rather than to protect species. We 

do not believe Congress intended the act to be used in this manner. Despite the healthy and stable numbers, the sage grouse 

is being considered to be listed based on speculative risks of what might happen to the species. Predictions of species 

responses based solely on projected changes in the availability of suitable habitat are likely to be inaccurate because they fail 

to account for important processes that potentially may influence extinction. We believe that there should be a requirement 

that a population is in a state of decline before a listing is made. If climate change or energy development is the issue, and the 

(Fish and Wildlife) Service says it's not going to regulate climate change or oil and gas, don't list the sage grouse under the ESA. 

The law should not be used for purposes for which it was not intended. The ESA should be focused on species recovery, not 

restoration of ecosystems that are changing as a result of change over time. The Endangered Species Act has changed from 

one of the least controversial laws enacted by Congress to one of the most contentious. Criticisms including that the act is 

costly, contemptuous of private property rights, and ineffective. An effort that eliminates the current system of designating 

"critical habitat," territory deemed critical to a species' survival is badly needed. Such a designation can open the door to 

significant land-use restrictions.

All Both rmc0001GB

7. Amended land use plan will state and comply with ESA regulation that requires removal of Sage Grouse listing after the 

purpose of it has been accomplished.

All Both rmc0004GB

8. The first is simple: If you want to help the bird population and turn the trend to increase, then stop hunting them. Until you 

see an increase in population and good scientific information to begin hunting them again.

All Both rmc0048GB

9. The issue of hunting a candidate (or endangered) species needs to be addressed and analyzed in the EIS. Will these priority 

habitat areas become de facto hunting preserves, since there is still a hunting season on these birds?

All Both rmc0029GB

10. For wind farms that have been established, the impact to birds has been devastating. At the Altamont Pass Wind Resource All Both rmc0038GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-25

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Area (APWRA) in California, the reported annual collision deaths for eagles was 75 to 110, for red tailed hawks 300, for 

Burrowing Owls 380 and for American Kestrels 333. That is over a thousand raptor mortalities per year. Many additional bird 

species are also killed totaling 4,700 annually. At New York's Tug Hill plateau, the completed facility is estimated to kill 16,000 

birds and bats annually. Any conventional energy industry would be prosecuted and fined for such mortality. But because 

wind power is "green" the industry gets a pass. The wind industry claims that the newer designs are bird friendly. Until 

documented and measurable reductions in bird mortality from wind turbines can be produced, no new wind projects on 

federal lands should be permitted and a moratorium on construction for approved projects should be instated.

11. As it stands now, taxpayers are funding the construction of private wind farms and subsidizing their operation. Why should 

the public also pay for the decommissioning of failed wind farm sites that ultimately could not compete in a free market 

economy in the first place?

All Both rmc0038GB

12. The horn hunters are out in full force on our sage-grouse habitats, many illegally cross country on their ATVs. I remain 

convinced this is probably the largest recreation impact.

All Both emc0197GB

13. I would like clear concise goals established by all agencies that a citizen can access online. All Both cfc0037GB

14. Coordinate the agency websites. Too many links! All Both cfc0037GB

15. 1. The NEPA process should address aspects of application and implementation of the technical recommendations and 

describe how the science will inform the policy; 2. Application and implementation of technical recommendations at all levels 

within each agency should be informed by the science. The alternative - the process fails; 3. The performance of agency 

employees should be evaluated against application and implementation criteria as informed by the science at all levels of 

decision making and for all on-the-ground uses and actions; and

All Both emc0066GB

16. In addition to habitat improvement, I believe there is a need to reduce predators and eliminate the hunting of Sage Grouse All Both emc0091GB

17. I believe we need to eliminate hunting Sage Grouse until they are shown to be rebounding in population. All Both emc0091GB

18. Stop the hunting first, that should be the first step! All Both emc0119GB

19. The EIS must determine whether hunting of sage grouse is indeed an insignificant impact on the overall population. Are 

hunting kills adequately estimated? Are some hunting methods such as unrestrained ATV usage on BLM land harmful in 

themselves to sage-grouse populations?

All Both emc0121GB

20. It is also curious to us why if the bird's numbers are in decline, we still allow a hunting season in their prime areas? Is this good 

management, or just a hurried process to get the birds listed?

All Both emc0128GB

21. We understand the political pressure to maintain a limited sage grouse hunt but find the collection of data through this 

avenue statistically suspect. While the FWS has ranked hunting near the bottom of the list of Identified Threats to Greater 

Sage Grouse, the impact is not negligible and the cost of implementation is comparatively small. Further, we believe that each

industry, indeed each project, should bear the cost of the mitigation it requires.

All Both emc0396GB

22. Our ratepayers grow weary of bearing the vast majority of the cost of salmon and steelhead mitigation while sportsmen and 

commercial fishing contribute very little to species recovery. This same problem is very evident in the sage grouse debate as 

many times utilities, ranchers and other commercial interests are asked to contribute most of the funding for mitigation and 

All Both emc0396GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-26 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

habitat improvement while the sportsman that hunt these species are not contributing a commensurate amount. \Vhile we 

understand the right of the sportsman and the concept of multiple use, it seems very odd that hunting these birds, even

though it is considered low impact. Surely cannot help in the effort to improve populations of the sage grouse in these areas

23. As an individual in the ranching business, I oppose all efforts of putting the sage-grouse on the endangered species list. Why? All Both cfc0046GB

24. There is still an open hunt in Idaho. They claim that hunters don't kill enough birds to be significant. ( around 7000)the last 

I heard. I don't know what they think is significant but hunting practices have changed as well. I see hunters riding double on

ATV's and riding in jeeps on all four corners. When a group of birds gets up they kill a lot of them with their 10 or 12 gage 

mag with a full choke. Then they are mobile enough to watch where they land. When they finish they have killed the entire 

brood. That may be more damaging than the number they kill.

All Both emc0377GB

25. Water developments do not rate very high on the "threats to sage grouse" graph but availability of surface water and 

distribution of water sources and moist sites is likely very important to grouse in this area relative to the large expanses of 

xeric habitaq

All Both emc0173GB

26. I have a suggestion for a possible solution to the sage grouse survival. I suggest you break up the geographical '\7\-\ - areas that 

the sage grouse roam in to different studies, different styles of study. I don't have any idea how many -' l:' different studies that 

would be, but allow these studies at least 5 years to run there course. Before any of the studies \.0 ~ begin we need an 

accurate and honest count of all the sage grouse in each of the designated areas. In one of the cr areas I would like the study 

to allow the hunting of any and all of the birds and animals that prey on sage grouse. The raptors in the sage grouse habitat 

have gone unchecked for decades allowing there numbers to be far greater than there prey can allow. We all know that the 

coyotes have gotten way out of control in all of the sage grouse habitat, where you could put a bounty on them to encourage 

people to thin the numbers down a little. I am not saying you need to wipe these animals out, I am just saying you need to 

control there numbers to allow for the grouse to thrive. If you could allow the people that enter this designated study area 

to manage some of the predator numbers I am positive the number of sage grouse will begin to climb.

All Both emc0004RM

27. Also I find it contradictory that it is important to protect the sage-grouse and possibly hurt the Rancher's liveihoods by 

limiting or not even allowing cattle to graze on public lands when sage-grouse are currently allowed to be hunted. This 

seems like an oxymoron to me. A good place to start saving sage-grouse is to not allow them tobe hunted. This should be a 

higher priority than regulatory cattle grazing. When considering a strategy,

All Both cfc0069GB

28. In conclusion, the government should find more productive ways to spend large sums of administrative monies instead of 

creating more restrictive rules and policies that do nothing but cause economic harm to small ranchers and livestock 

operators. These businesses are not only tax paying citizens but pay thousands in grazing fees to the BLM and USFS, as well. 

Do not over regulate to the extent where the small business rancher themselves become an endangered species. Special 

interest groups do not pay taxes and in all actuality are nothing more than tax shelters for the very rich.

All Both emc0148GB

29. Please support the US Fish and Wildlife's proposal to have endangered species protection for the sage grouse. All Both emc0203GB

30. With the passage of the March10, 1972 amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 the predator pressure to the 

sage grouse has been building. This amendment granted protection to thirty-two species of birds including eagles, hawks, owls 

and the Corvidae family. Ravens, like crows are highly opportunistic and exploit a wide range of food sources depending on 

All Both emc0208GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-27

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

what is available and when it is available. In addition, they are regarded as being among the most “intelligent” of all birds and 

are quick to learn about (and exploit) new food sources. Their habit of feeding in large flocks also means that they can easily 

tackle potential prey much larger than they are. Ravens, crows and magpies are all listed in the “Landowner’s Guide to 

Common North American Predators of Upland Nesting Birds.

31. I fnd that I must take great exception to the comments of Idaho Federal District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in his February 6, 2012 

decision in favor of Western Watersheds Project vs. BLM. Winmill indicated that BLM had failed to examine the cumulative 

impact of its actions across a wide expanse of sage grouse habitat, and that actions such as fencing springs to prevent 

trampling by cattle were unacceptable, since they “ensure(s) that this potential habitat cannot be used by sage grouse.” Now 

I don’t have a degree in Rangeland Management, but I do know that typically spring enclosures are built to only keep large 

animals out. I have never seen one that a sage grouse would not be able to walk under or fly over. Even if someone were 

allowed to build such an enclosure that could keep small animals out, typically the overflow from a spring development runs 

into an overflow area so that smaller animals would be able to access water there if they were not able to drink from the 

water trough.

All Both emc0208GB

32. Deter or shorten the hunting season on the sage grouse. If their numbers really are as low as claimed then the logical solution 

is not to hunt or cut back the number of days that the season is open. This way the birds can have at least one year to 

repopulate themselves. A voluntary halt by sportsmen would probably surprise you that they too are concerned and capable 

of providing support in their management.

All Both emc0241GB

33. Pressures will be heavy from conservation groups and radical groups alike for the listing of the sage grouse as endangered. 

The action of such would have devastating economic and cultural effects on the American west. I challenge the Bureau of Land 

Management to stand their ground. They know our public lands and what is right for each different area of it. Trust in the 

people that really care about the lands and the communities that call them home.

All Both emc0241GB

34. I am opposed to listing the Greater Sage Grouse with the Endangered Species Act. The stringent rules and regulations 

regarding the bird's conservation impose so many restraints upon ranchers that they will be unable to operate their 

businesses and produce beef and beef by-products, which are consumed by millions in our country and abroad

All Both emc0244GB

35. I would be willing to see the hunting of sage grouse closed for several years, if it would help to improve the population. All Both cfc0014RM

36. The Fish & Wildlife Service folks need to get out here on the ground & see the anger and frustration of producers. It's real 

hard to see things from an office in Washington D.C.

All Both cfc0018RM

37. Hunting sagegrouse doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore. If it is continued- all license $ collected should go towards projects 

providing water for the grouse, which is a limiting factor given short shrify.

All Both cfc0018RM

38. NEPA was designed to protect the human element which is not given true consideration. All Both cfc0020RM

39. Will there be a mitigation committee to deal with conflict as result of plan that develops All Both cfc0020RM

40. The Montezuma County Colorado Board of County Commissioners would like to state, for the record, that we are opposed 

to the listing of the Greater Sage Grouse as an Endangered Species. That said we understand that these comments directed 

to the BLM regarding the forthcoming Environmental Impact statements published in the Federal Register December 9.

All Both emc0032RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-28 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

41. While we understand the Greater Sage Grouse is experiencing population decline and that it merits adaptive management 

strategies in effort to reverse this trend, we do not believe that the scientific evidence currently supports an outright 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing.

All Both emc0032RM

42. The ESA has become a very popular tool for environmental groups and conservation organizations because of the vast 

regulatory power it carries. The Federal ESA prohibits "taking" of an endangered or threatened animal. This includes some of 

the obvious and common sense restrictions including that you cannot "harm harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species." However In 1975, the Secretary of Interior broadened the 

definition of "take" by defining "harm" as: "An act or omission which actually injures or kills wildlife, including acts which 

annoy it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt essential behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering; significant environmental modification or degradation which has such effects is included 

within the meaning of "harm." "Taking" is also interpreted to mean habitat alternation resulting in harm to the species. 

Whether on private or Federal land, whether intentional or unintentional.

All Both emc0032RM

43. We do not argue that the Sage Grouse is a magnificent bird and worthy of being conserved. However the petition for listing 

the Sage Grouse identifies many problems which cannot be addressed easily or at all. Clearly the ESA will attempt to assert 

regulatory control over the things it can affect, such as grazing and energy development yet ignore many things that it cannot 

affect which often playa more significant role such as fire, precipitation patterns and diseases. ESA regulation will also ignore 

one plain and simple fact. People are a natural element within the environment. Humans can change the way they interact with 

the landscape, but humans have as much right to be in the landscape as any other species.

All Both emc0032RM

44. Also, as a rancher that lives and works on the land, there are two issues that continually come up when discussing this with 

friends and neighbors: · Why do we continue to have a hunting season for sage-grouse when they are on the verge of being 

listed?

All Both emc0043RM

45. Digressing slightly: As of December 2011, sixteen months after completion of the HAF, the NTT Report notes that it still had 

not been published, nor had the BLM followed through with direction for its implementation, despite it being a high-priority 

for completion and a specific element (Strategy 2.2.2) of BLM's National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 

(November 2004). Prior to my retirement, I initiated the contract with WAFWA to complete the HAF and know the high 

degree of anticipation that existed to get it done and in use. Had it been promptly published and guidance issued shortly after 

its completion, as intended, 1) apparent inconsistencies in how sage-grouse habitat is referenced may have been avoided and 

2) field offices and others interested in conducting habitat assessments would likely have made substantial progress by now.

After completion, the HAF was posted to a Wyoming Game and Fish web page, (http://

gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/ SG_HABITATASESSMENT0000669.pdf). To my knowledge, that is still 

the only open web source from which it can be downloaded, despite it being a BLM document intended for agency and public 

use, including private landowners. Unless one knows it is there or knows the name of the document for a web search, they 

would have difficulty finding it.

All Both emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

46. I would like one of the alternatives studied for the EIS to be a moratorium on hunting of greater sage grouse and no other 

restrictions. If this cannot be done because of conflicting state-federal laws, I would like to have an option where the state can 

voluntarily opt to ban greater sage-grouse hunting in return for the BLM/USFS not imposing any additional land use 

All Both emc0262GB 

emc0107RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-29

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

restrictions. I would like to see a study of projected Sage-Grouse populations if all hunting of them was banned, or if hunting 

were banned in selected regions.

47. Given the numbers presented by NDOW, we don't see extinction as a problem. If extinction really is eminent, then why not 

curtail hunting until the numbers build up. A more realistic approach would be to de-list ravens and crows and ease hunting 

restrictions on coyotes and mountain lions as these predators take a huge toll on eggs and young birds.

All Both emc0237GB

48. 1. The Greater Sage Grouse must have its ESA ruling by the end of 2012. All Both emc0074RM

49. BLM Instruction Memorandum 2012-043 states that the Columbia Basin and Bi-State Distinct Population Segments of 

sage-grouse will not be included in the planning process. The planning process should include all populations and Distinct 

Population Segments of Greater Sage-grouse rangewide

All Both emc0391GB

50. Under ESA of the Section 7 consultation requires a biological opinion to be prepared in order to determine whether special 

constraints need to be imposed. Under BLM’s Interim Strategy, restrictions would be imposed on a regional basis which 

would preclude the possibility of negotiation of best practices and other tools available to mitigate impacts. The planning 

strategy must not disregard the protocols established under the ESA.

All Both emc0340GB

51. It is apparent that centralized policy overrides science when considering the analyses and conclusions of the sage grouse 

studies. Whether by intent or coincidence, for the uninitiated but scientifically and technically accomplished reader, the 

submitted May 15, 2011 USFWS Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form (USFWS 2011, subsequently 

noted as Form) is unclear and poorly presented. The 139-page submittal is without page numbers, table of contents or index. 

Headings are repetitive except where they simply reference letters of the alphabet with no clear subject. That unprofessional 

and unclear construct makes referencing, cross-referencing and checking tedious beyond the point of deceptive. Given the 

scale and import of the matter, this is troubling since the presentation obscures both data and analyses, hindering substantive 

evaluation of the conclusions and recommendations. As a taxpayer, it is appalling that this low quality apparently is standard 

and acceptable practice by the bureaucracy.

All Both emc0274GB

52. The prime directive of the bureaucracy is growth of the bureaucracy, not growth of the sage grouse population. This is 

evident since by far the greatest portion of the Form is devoted to regulatory mechanisms. That extensive discussion reads 

as a rationalization for greater regulatory expansion. Essentially, it states that central planning by an enlarged bureaucracy will

improve habitat by restricting or eliminating human activity on or near sage grouse habitat.

All Both emc0274GB

53. 12. The BLM Should Push Congress to Designate Wilderness for Wilderness Study Areas that Contain Sage-Grouse Habitat.

There are numerous Wilderness Study Areas (“WSAs”) throughout the West that contain priority and general sage-grouse 

habitat, including WSAs within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Many of these crucial areas of wilderness have been 

sitting in limbo for over three decades, with lacking the congressional designation necessary to make these WSAs wilderness 

areas. Because areas designated as wilderness by Congress enjoy protection from some of the most damaging and destructive 

activities on public lands, the BLM should push Congress to designate wilderness for WSAs that contain sage-grouse habitat. 

By doing so, BLM would in effect be protecting vital sage-grouse from some of the biggest threats facing the species today. In 

Idaho, for example, maps suggest that there is priority sage-grouse habitat in several WSAs, including Appendicitis Hill, Black 

Canyon, Cedar Butte, and Eighteenmile WSAs. Many of the WSAs containing sage-grouse priority habitat should have 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-30 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

received Congressional designation years ago, which may have been able to slow the decline of sage-grouse populations 

across the West. Pushing Congress to designate wilderness in WSAs important for sage-grouse persistence seems a suitable 

and logical way to ensure protection of some sage-grouse priority habitat, and we urge BLM to do so.

54. Quantify the impacts of hunting and work with the appropriate agencies to develop methods to reduce the impacts of hunting 

of sage grouse.

All Both emc0305GB

55. Lastly we question the legal qualification for the sage-grouse to be listed as a threatened or endangered species. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service CFWS) findings determined that a minimum effective population of 5,000 sage-grouse will safeguard them 

from the long-term risk of extinction range-wide.2 The findings estimated that the current population is between 350,000 and 

535,000 birds or 70 to 107 times greater than the "minimum effective population" as found by the FWS. On the surface, it 

appears that the sage grouse is ineligible for listing.

All Both emc0318GB

56. The sage grouse debate is also similar to the spotted owl in that just as the owl was a pretext to stop logging, the sage grouse 

is a pretext to stop energy and mineral development and livestock grazing. Sound data and objective analysis would have

avoided a listing of the spotted owl then and should preclude a listing of the sage grouse now. The spotted owl experience 

provides a profound lesson on the severe consequences that a listing decision can have on a region. When it is done with

incomplete data, the outcome is no better for the species despite the generationchanging human and social costs. BLM has 

one chance to avoid a similar debacle but it must return to scientific principles that require objective evaluation of a sound 

data.

All Both emc0371GB

57. The sage grouse is still hunted in most of the affected states. The fact that the NOI and the Technical Team Report omit this 

important cause of mortality, while focusing on potential and unverified collisions with motor vehicles, underscores the 

deficiencies in the analysis to date. Even if BLM does not regulate hunting, it must still acknowledge mortality due to hunting. 

Similarly, wing counts are still used by wildlife agencies to estimate bird populations. They are said to be more accurate than 

the lek counts, which apply only to observed males. The Technical Team report focuses on improving lek counts while not 

even mentioning wing counts as the supplemental source of bird populations. The disconnect in the Technical Team Report 

is also illustrated by its treatment of livestock grazing as a diffuse disturbance while hunting is exempt from all recognition of

impact. Hunting is a direct disturbance and typically includes loud noises and motor vehicles. And yet this activity is entirely 

ignored in the so-called strategy. CLG members support hunting but use this omission as an example to illustrate the tunnel 

vision employed in IM 2012-44, Technical Team Report, and to document the need of the EIS process to address the role of 

hunting and correct the errors already made.

All Both emc0371GB

58. Safari Club is pleased that the BLM recognizes that GSG hunting does not pose a threat to the species’ conservation. For 

example, the BLM’s GSG “Frequently Asked Questions” page reports: In its March 2010 warranted but precluded finding on 

listing the Greater Sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) specifically looked 

at the threats to the species posed by hunting. The FWS found that “In the United States, sage-grouse hunting is regulated by 

State wildlife agencies and hunting regulations are reevaluated yearly. ... We have no evidence suggesting that gun and bow

sport hunting has been a primary cause of range-wide declines of the greater sage-grouse in the past, or that it currently is at 

a level that poses a significant threat to the species. ... continued close attention will be needed by States and tribes to 

carefully manage hunting mortality, including adjusting seasons and allowable harvest levels, and imposing emergency closures 

All Both emc0349GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-31

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

if needed. In sum, we find that this threat is not significant to the species such that it causes the species to warrant listing

under the Act. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/frequently_asked_questions.html. Unfortunately, 

regardless of the fact that hunting poses no threat to GSG conservation, hunting will be prohibited if the FWS finds it 

necessary to list the species. The fact that hunting of GSG would be banned, even though it has no detrimental impact on GSG

populations and it incentivizes landowners to protect GSG habitat, truly shows the failure of the Endangered Species Act to 

always work in a manner that advances conservation.

59. In 2011, the FWS entered into settlement agreements with two groups, Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth 

Guardians, in which the FWS agreed to decide either to list or not to list the GSG by the end of FY 2015. By entering into this 

settlement, in a case that did not even involve candidate species or the GSG, the FWS voluntarily surrendered its statutory 

authority to continue to designate the GSG as a candidate species. The FWS and Department of Justice made this decision 

without the input of the public and without consulting its federal agency and State partners. If by 2015, the FWS finds that one 

or more of the Endangered Species Act listing factors indicates that the GSG is in danger of extinction or is likely to become 

an endangered species within the foreseeable future, the FWS will be forced to propose a rule to list the species. Candidate 

status will no longer be an option. Although the FWS reissued its “warranted but precluded” status for the GSG in 2011, and 

presumably will do so again in 2012, 2013, and 2014, when FY 2015 rolls around, the FWS will not be able under the

Settlements to exercise this authority, regardless of what the science says about the level of threat to the GSG. Currently, the 

GSG’s listing priority is an eight (out of 12, with lower numbers indicating a higher listing priority). Even if between now and 

2015, conservation efforts by Federal agencies, States, and other stakeholders improves the status some but not enough to 

change the warranted finding, the FWS will have no choice but to propose a rule to list the species. In terms of keeping the 

GSG off the ESA list, these conservation efforts will then be wasted. On the other hand, a continued warranted but precluded 

determination would recognize these efforts and encourage continued and further efforts to conserve the species to avoid a 

listing.

All Both emc0349GB

60. The analysis should also disclose impacts of the hunting of the Grouse, which is still allowed in at least 8 of the 11 states where 

it is found. Importantly, Sage Grouse conservation efforts such as seasonal restrictions and bag limits have been quite 

successful in maintaining healthy populations. The same has been shown for motorized access and use. For example, Grouse 

leks are concise, well-established, historic areas that can last for decades. Add to this that leks are mostly in use for 

strutting/mating during crepuscular hours and that motorized recreation is generally NOT undertaken during those hours ... 

The two can be successfully separated.

All Both rmc0061GB, 

rmc0035RM

61. As a concluding remark, it has come to our attention that the BLM recently deferred a decision on the China Mountain EIS 

Project until the BLM completes the EIS process on sage grouse conservation. The sage-grouse conservation EIS process is 

likely to continue for numerous years to come, and could be held up in the courts beyond 2014 through the appeal process. 

It should not be the BLM's policy to defer project decisions indefinitely; and the BLM should be required to "act" on active 

applications within a reasonable timeframe. The BLM needs to make decisions based on current regulations and not based on 

regulations that mayor may not be in place in the future.

All Both rmc0068GB

62. The accusation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that current NEPA performance is lacking in adequate protection 

requires demonstrated evidence that such is the case with actual examples provided on where inappropriate analysis resulted 

All Both rmc0058GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-32 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in improper land use decisions. We want the documentation provided in this draft EIS to specify actual shortcomings of the 

current guidance manuals and why shortcircuiting the present framework of land-use management decisions is warranted by 

this over-reaching grab for unwarranted change.

63. The actions contemplated are for a species which is "warranted, but precluded", seeking to avoid a higher level of designation 

under the Endangered Species Act. If the bird were to gain greater protection through an update in the ESA process, how 

much more land and regulatory control would be instituted? Would greater landscapes be required? Are the areas that are 

now designated actually necessary for this level of attention for a species in this status?

All Both rmc0058GB

64. It is also unbelievable that any species could be considered threatened while fish and wildlife maintains an active hunting 

season on them

All Both fxc0017GB

65. It would make much more sense to pick a few thousand acres or a national park and introduce a plan for the Sage Grouse. All Both fxc0015GB

66. We believe a new administrative BLM conservation designation is needed to conserve sage grouse core areas and other key 

fish and wildlife habitats and to sustain our hunting and fishing opportunities. Please consider these recommendations for the 

creation of a Backcountry Conservation Area designation that will achieve these objectives. We see this designation as just 

one component of a larger landscape level strategy that should be utilized by the BLM for sage grouse conservation. Please 

see additional comments that have been submitted by some of the undersigned organizations for more information.

All BLM emc0412GB 

emc0172rm

67. The BLM currently employs administrative designations under Section 202 of the Federal Lands and Policy Management Act 

of 1976 that facilitate the conservation of high-value lands, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research 

Natural Areas. While these existing designations provide the necessary tools to conserve lands and can effectively conserve 

sage grouse habitat, the titles and terminology of these designations often are not understood by people who live near and 

use these public lands. Rural Westerners and sportsmen can regard these designations with suspicion, and communicating 

their meaning requires considerable time and effort. As a result, the long-term success of preexisting administrative 

designations has been severely limited. We believe that a new "BCA" designation that speaks to the values of people using and

living near BLM lands would garner significant public support and enable conservation of more acres than could be conserved 

under existing designations. The BCA designation would represent a multiple-use conservation framework with reasonable 

vegetation management exceptions to benefit fish and wildlife. Most sage grouse researchers agree that sage grouse declines 

are due to the loss of sage brush habitat from noxious weed invasion and various forms of development, including activities 

associated with oil and gas extraction. A BCA designation would allow sage brush habitat conservation and restoration 

projects that would greatly benefit sage grouse. This framework also would allow vegetation management that protects 

communities from wildfire while ensuring that these already undeveloped BLM lands retain their backcountry character. 

We recommend that the BCA administrative designation be used through the land use planning process to conserve 

unfragmented sage grouse core areas, other fish and wildlife habitat and dispersed recreation from development activities.

All BLM emc0412GB 

emc0172rm

68. Lands considered for backcountry conservation area designation should encompass the following: (1) High-quality fish and 

wildlife habitat or primitive or backcountry classifications for recreation opportunities; and (2) One of the following: a. A 

roadless area with 5,000 or more contiguous acres of BLM lands or; b. An area of sufficient size as to make its conservation 

practicable. Minimum acreage is not required, but lands should have physical features that enable boundary delineation and 

All BLM emc0412GB 

emc0172rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-33

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

management for conservation purposes.

69. We recommend the BCA designation incorporate the following management principles: - This designation would conserve 

specific, unfragmented BLM backcountry areas with high-quality fish and wildlife habitat and/or significant sporting 

opportunities. - Designated areas would remain open to public hunting, fishing and trapping, and state fish and wildlife 

agencies would retain management authority over fish and wildlife populations. - This designation would maintain existing 

authorized and permitted motorized routes that are important for sportsmen to access backcountry areas for hunting and 

fishing. - The construction of new motorized routes within designated backcountry areas would be restricted to conserve 

unfragmented habitat and hunting and fishing opportunities. - Vegetation management would be limited to projects that 

improve fish and wildlife habitat, control noxious weeds and reduce the risk of wildfire, such as projects to control cheat grass 

and restore sage brush. - Prescribed burning and the installation and maintenance of water guzzlers would be allowed within 

designated areas. - Chainsaws, helicopters and mechanical devices, such as game carts, would be allowed within designated 

areas. - This designation would conserve unfragmented habitat by requiring that utility corridors, pipelines and conventional 

and renewable energy development be located outside the boundaries of designated areas. - This designation would not affect 

valid existing rights, public lands grazing allotments or the ability of ranchers to maintain agriculture improvements. 

Sportsmen want to see a middle-ground conservation designation that conserves unfragmented habitat and hunting and 

fishing while allowing reasonable exceptions that benefit fish and wildlife. We believe the BCA designation would serve as a 

valuable tool for the BLM, other stakeholders and the public. We encourage the BLM to adopt this designation.

All BLM emc0412GB 

emc0172rm

70. Various carrying capacity analysis methods are used by BLM. For example, Elko and some other BLM offices in Nevada set 

stocking rates based on a bizarre system where theoretical stocking can vary wildly based on precipitation (though the BLM 

claims levels are adjusted to some kind of average). Underlying and preceding all this is the old adjudication process where 

ranchers made very inflated claims about the capacity of the land to support very large livestock herds, and then BLM 

subsequently carved a small slice off that number. The inflated numbers claimed during adjudication processes have never 

been reduced to levels that could be considered sustainable. So the whole system of stocking of public lands (and allocating 

AUMs) has been based on high unrealistic numbers all along. Allocations and stocking are seldom whittled down in agency 

decisions without encountering great resistance from the livestock industry. Managers that want to advance their careers 

often avoid such controversial actions. Hundreds if not thousands of 10 year grazing permits across the range of sage-grouse 

are authorized under Grazing Riders annually, often with no full public NEPA process ever having been conducted at any time 

in the past at all. Grazing permits and outdated and lax use standards are being renewed for 10 years without any 

environmental review having occurred. Many BLM livestock grazing permits have been carried forward under Congressional 

riders for another decade without any hard and current integrated look at how grazing is impacting ecological conditions of 

sagebrush habitats. This means that long-outdated use levels, stocking rates, management practices, all continue without any 

analysis or agency records adequately tracking the degradation, or the causes of ecological declines. Thus, there has been no 

coherent and effective action taken addressing degradation and threats. The situation is paralleled on Forest Service lands, as 

well, where across vast areas of western Forests, there has been no current integrated NEPA analysis of adverse impacts of 

livestock disturbance. Many Forest and some BLM allotments rely on vintage Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) never 

subjected to NEPA analysis at all. The Forest continues to piecemeal harmful fencing and water projects in under CEs or 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-34 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

minimal Eas that violate NEPA.

71. As another example, in 2011 Congressional Riders Attached to the Interior Appropriations attacked the Forest Appeals 

process. Other examples are the Jarbidge Temporary Non-renewable Use (TNR) Riders that mandated politically powerful 

ranchers get extra grazing use on the very lands that should have been undergoing recovery for sagebrush species needs. So 

these Riders enable agencies to slide by with status , or even more, damaging levels of disturbance and lax management, 

without ever critically analyzing site-specific harms of cattle and sheep grazing disturbance on public lands. Plus even in the 

case of science showing disease losses of bighorn sheep due to disease transmission from domestic sheep, a 2011 

Congressional Rider prevented the Forest from scientifically addressing livestock management and removing the 

disease-causing domestic sheep from Payette Forest bighorn habitat. The public lands sheep industry is a heavily subsidized 

burden to taxpayers, with only a hand full of large sheep operations engaged in it (typically 10-15 big operators in each state). 

Large-scale bighorn sheep die-offs have occurred due to agency failure to remove domestic sheep from bighorn habitats.

All Both emc0411GB

72. BLM’s Federal Register Scoping Notice states that the purpose is to avoid a potential Listing by September 2014. Why? What 

is wrong with integrated oversight, and required controls and agency consultation that would be in place under the ESA? BLM 

appears more interested in conserving all manner of status quo uses across the landscape than it is in conserving the species. 

WWP was alarmed in listening to the facilitator for the WY Core process, Bob Budd, talk in Boise in the Idaho statehouse 

about what he repeatedly termed to the onerous burden of the ESA. Budd repeatedly referred to the ESA with disdain.

All Both emc0411GB

73. This process should fully consider protecting all sagebrush wild lands that remain. It must analyze the adverse cumulative 

impacts of massive solar or other industrial development on lands critical to migratory bird species that rely on sites within 

sagebrush that is sage-grouse habitat for nesting, then also need critical resources as these species migrate seasonally. For 

example, a species like the sage sparrow nests in the lower elevations of the sagebrush biome in continuous and less 

fragmented expanses of Wyoming big sagebrush. This bird uses sagebrush habitats outside the range of sagegrouse in 

migration or at other times of the year. Very important sage sparrow nesting habitats are sacrificed in the Idaho, NV and 

other mapping with the General and Non habitat categories sagebrush is being segregated into. Another example is the 

loggerhead shrike. The loggerhead shrike in the sagebrush biome uses salt desert shrub and salt desert shrub-sagebrush 

interfaces, as well as mature and old growth Wyoming and Basin big sagebrush communities. BLM is already treating salt 

desert shrub communities as sacrifice areas as it tries to continue all manner of development across the public lands. An 

example of this mindset is the Draft Winnemucca RMP DEIS, which placed nearly all salt desert shrub lands (outside of the 

Black Rock NCA and its associated Wildernesses) in near-maximum exploitation categories. Yet another example is the 

continued development, re-development and de-watering of springs under claims of “improvement” with band-aid fencing 

claimed to be “improving” sage-grouse brood rearing habitat. This of course destroys the potential of sites to support willows 

or diverse riparian shrub communities that support several species of migratory songbirds – along with reducing the mesic 

and wet meadow area extent so sage-grouse too loose out in these projects done to try to vainly mitigate livestock 

degradation in arid lands.

All Both emc0411GB

74. All actions claimed to be mitigation must be clearly identified and examined in the analysis for a project. The current agency 

method of dealing with mitigation – as in NDOW/BLM in Spring Valley wind is just to get a big sum of money, and then 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-35

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

proceed to do piecemeal scattered livestock projects like fencing and piecemeal vegetation “treatments” that are not 

analyzed in the industrial development project’s NEPA to effectively mitigate for project disturbances. Future piecemeal 

“mitigation” projects often serve to shift and intensify impacts, and allow landscapelevel degradation to continue 

unaddressed. An example is the Montana Mountain meadow fencing project – where there has been no current analysis of 

livestock grazing impacts or consideration of alternatives and application of more conservative use standards. Here, under a 

closeted Categorical Exclusion, BLM spent mitigation dollars to build even more fencing in Lone Willow PMU lands - while at 

the same time allowing large numbers of livestock to continue trampling and grazing disturbance to all unprotected meadows, 

seeps, springs across allotments that have never had any modern day assessment of grazing impacts whatsoever. This will only 

serve to hasten the demise of the unprotected meadow areas, and intensify grazing disturbance to them. Such piecemeal 

projects also serve to delay any integrated look at the abusive livestock grazing that is promoting weed expansion across the

Lone Willow PMU uplands.

75. With the Gateway EIS process, BLM has flailed to placate some agricultural interests. It has added new harmful routes, for 

which minimum on-the-ground studies have been conducted. BLM allowed very harmful routes to be included in the DEIS –

including a route by the Nevada border. One of the alternatives added at the last minute by BLM due to political pressure 

from agricultural interests on the Snake River Plain who are trying to shift a route onto the Nevada border on top of large 

areas of relatively less disturbed remote wild sagebrush lands. This line would open up an entire undeveloped region to 

industrial wind, geothermal industrial-type sites, mining, and other disturbances including intensified livestock grazing. We are 

very concerned that this flawed mitigation model discusses habitat as “currency” – as if more could readily be minted. See 

WWP Gateway DEIS comments (Attached), illustrating concerns with this method.

All Both emc0411GB

76. The NTT and IMs fail to address the ongoing deficiencies of agency NEPA processes, and the often false claims of minimal or 

no significant impacts that are being made by agency managers to justify new developments in critical and key sage-grouse 

habitats every day.

All Both emc0411GB

77. We are seeing many new very harmful livestock facility projects to extend and intensify livestock impacts being proposed in 

critical sage-grouse habitats. Instead of acting to conserve, recover and restore sagebrush habitats, BLM and the Forest 

Service are acting to further disrupt, fragment and destroy. For example, in the very small and isolated Clear Lake population 

of sage-grouse in NE California and the Oregon border, the Forest Service is now proposing to spend tens of thousands of 

dollars drilling new wells and building even more west Nile virus-promoting stock troughs with inevitable pooling of water 

that creates mosquito habitat. The landscape is already laced with lethal fences and fragmented by livestock water 

developments and troughs. Of course, this will also only serve to increase intensive livestock impacts in areas previously less 

disturbed, ie. Remnant better condition habitats. And this is all being proposed under a CE. Forest Service and BLM use of 

Ces and DNAs to ramrod projects through are a significant threat to sage-grouse habitats and populations. Of course drilling 

a well and punching in new pipelines would have significant impacts, but the Forest here is trying to do this under a CE 

because its greatly flawed Appeals regulations do not allow Appeal of Ces.

All Both emc0411GB

78. See what you can do about eradicating hunting season on the grouse All Both fld00008rm

79. See what you can do about eradicating hunting season on the grouse All Both fld0008rm, 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-36 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

fld0008gb

80. In drafting the alternatives for the EIS, the BLM should also work closely with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife to understand 

and not conflict with their management approach that currently allows a limited annual harvest of the GSG in specific hunting

units in northwest Colorado with the purchase of a small game license.

CO Both emc0058RM

81. With all sagehens face, isn't also having a hunting season each Fall on their tiny population of under 3,000 unwise? Sagehens 

need human help in many ways, not buckshot. Let then be only watchable wildlife until numbers increase into the many 

thousands. Hunt sagehens then.

CO Both rmc0016RM

82. Maybe Jackson County officials don't have the guts or concern to work with the DOW and demand a stop of the hunting 

season on sagehens. These locals haven't shown a strong mindset to help the birds in the past. They did set up a local Sage 

Grouse Working Group that never really changed anything on the ground, but it looked good on paper. But recently, the 

North Park Stock Growers Association wanted to stop the slaughter, voting to do so. It is now time for the Federal 

Government to lower the boom big time, saving a wildlife heritage most locals do not seem to appreciate.

CO Both rmc0016RM

83. Some North Parkers and many other Americans would went to see and marvel at sagehens strutting in April. So lets put some 

teeth into saving them and their habitat. Its time for people to avoid sagehen leks, stop sagehen hunting, make the birds only 

watchable wildlife, and let the government save the species and their habitat all across North Park and the West.

CO Both rmc0016RM

84. Also the BLM could use it's good offices to put pressure on the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife to stop hunting 

The Greater sage grouse

CO BLM emc0183RM

85. BLM needs to resolve internal policy initiative conflicts within the Department of the Interior (DOI), as they apply to 

renewable energy development and wild horse management. These land uses are DOI priorities even though they have the 

same or greater adverse impacts to sage grouse habitat as do other land uses that BLM now proposes to end or restrict;

East Both emc0155RM

86. The sage grouse is still hunted in most of the affected states. The fact that the NOI and the Technical Team Report omit this 

important cause of mortality, while focusing on potential and unverified collisions with motor vehicles, underscores the 

deficiencies in the analysis to date. Even if BLM does not regulate hunting, it must still acknowledge mortality due to hunting. 

Similarly, wing counts are still used by wildlife agencies to estimate bird populations. They are said to be more accurate than 

the lek counts, which apply only to observed males. The Technical Team report focuses on improving lek counts while not 

even mentioning wing counts as the supplemental source of bird populations. The disconnect in the Technical Team Report 

is also illustrated by its treatment of livestock grazing as a diffuse disturbance while hunting is exempt from all recognition of

impact. Hunting is a direct disturbance and typically includes loud noises and motor vehicles. And yet this activity is entirely 

ignored in the so-called strategy. VRLP members support hunting but use this omission as an example to illustrate the tunnel 

vision employed in IM 2012-44, Technical Team Report, and to document the need of the EIS process to address the role of 

hunting and correct the errors already made.

East Both emc0155RM

87. We understand the political pressure to maintain a limited sage grouse hunt but find the collection of data through this 

avenue statistically suspect. While the FWS has ranked hunting near the bottom of the list of Identified Threats to Greater 

Sage Grouse, the impact is not negligible and the cost of implementation is comparatively small.

GB Both rmc0056GB

88. We support the contention of the Elko County Commission that the absence of the required public comment period GB Both rmc0056GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-37

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

necessitates suspension of the instructional memorandum pending revision.

89. If Sage Grouse numbers have declined to the point that they are considered to be put on the Endangered Species list it seems 

logical that they not be hunted. In Idaho there is presently a hunting season for Sage Grouse.

IDMT Both rmc0030GB

90. I do not feel that present day hunting needs to happen. If the sage grouse is that close to be listed then hunting should stop 

immediately. I also feel that the hunting now does not have a big hand in the decline because people from the Boise area 

(biggest concentration of hunters) will not drive 120 to 130 miles for 1 bird a day and 2 in possession.

IDMT Both emc0207GB

91. I still hunt the areas that my dad and I did "50 years ago",,, and to date I have seen some slight fluctuations in the very stable 

populations of sage grouse.. They are huntable in numbers ,, I believe the FWP have set seasons and limits prudently...

MT-RM Both emc0017RM

92. When I was a boy on a Southeastern Montana ranch, old timers talked of riding areas of open range over a century ago where 

sage grouse rose by the thousands in front of them all day long, and to obtain one for food at night one simply rode through 

a flock and knocked several hens and young grouse down with the knot of a lariat. Near the home ranch, remaining habit was 

already fragmented and the few surviving localized populations were very susceptible to hunting pressure. A State biologist 

who recommended annually without success that several areas be closed to hunting finally resigned and left to work in the 

family hardware store.

MT-RM Both emc0082RM

93. When C Punch started in Nevada in 1968 the sage hen population on the Blue Wing allotment was very small. The main 

hunting interest was for chucker. The few sage hen that were left were protected by C Punch by not hunting and fencing a few 

meadows. To my knowledge our effort did not help.

NVCA Both rmc0044GB

94. Even in the 60's and 70's up to 3,000 chucker hunters would show up on opening day and some would remain camped on 

water sources till the season ended. Unfortunately most of them didn't distinguish between a chucker and a sage hen.

NVCA Both rmc0044GB

95. I have done no research on the subject but it appears in our area the demise of the sage hen has coincided with the 

introduction and increase in the chucker population. Even if the chucker didn't directly compete with the sage hen they 

created an increase in hunting in the area which ultimately depleted both species.

NVCA Both rmc0044GB

96. Although sage grouse has been identified as a species in decline, the State of Nevada still allows the hunting of the species. I 

understand that 2% of sage grouse in the State of Nevada is lost to hunting. If the species is in decline, and if strict 

conservation measures are being imposed, the hunting of the species should not be allowed under any circumstances. 

Because hunters provide information on sage grouse to the state and federal government, it is not a justification to allow the 

hunting of a species that is in decline.

NVCA Both rmc0035GB

97. Hunting sage grouse should be eliminated in most areas unless the grouse become over populated. NVCA Both emc0253GB

98. While out of the scope of the BLM’s planning effort directly I bring up HR 1581/S1087 - Wilderness and Roadless Area 

Release Act of 2011, co-sponsored by Senator Heller and Congressman Amodei, as an example of short-sighted legislation 

that is directly counter to what the BLM is trying to accomplish with this EIS. The intension of HR 1581/S1087 is: "To release 

wilderness study areas administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are not suitable for wilderness designation from 

continued management as de facto wilderness areas and to release inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest 

System that are not recommended for wilderness designation from the land use restrictions of the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Final Rule and the 2005 State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Final Rule, and for other 

NVCA Both emc0401GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-38 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-2

Comments Related to Issues to Be Solved by National Policy

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

purposes."

99. As a primary stakeholder, we would like to indicate our support of the Bureau, State Wildlife Agencies and US Fish and 

Wildlife Service in their efforts to avoid the possible listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We, 

however, believe other opportunities may be available to consider without placing restrictions on current projects or areas 

that have a potential to meet the National energy needs of the American people. These scenarios may include blocking up 

private ownership through direct sale or exchanges in areas processing less potential for habitat and population expansion 

and therefore focusing resources and conservation measures in those areas of extreme importance to the species. We feel 

this type of direction would provide a benefit not only to the public and local economy, but to the stakeholders, Federal Land 

Management agencies and species as a whole. Off-site mitigation measures through habitat enhancement projects have also 

proven beneficial to species recovery efforts and could be a consideration of our companies where economically feasible.

NVCA Both rmc0053GB

100. How can studies show predators are a concern, but predator control is not being used as a management tool? NVCA Both fxc0014GB

101. We understand the many demands on BLM management, including the need for revenues from livestock grazing. We believe 

the livestock grazing fees can be increased if the quality of feed is improved; which it will, if you periodically let the land rest 

a couple of years. I read that the going rate this year is $1.23 per head (I think the term was grazing unit or something) per 

month. This is pretty cheap for the cattleman compared to the cost of raising the livestock on their own land. The public is 

subsidizing the ranching industry. Clearly, we are not ranchers, but many of our neighbors are. We are not vegetarians, and 

love to eat grass/hay feed beef. So we do have a vested interest in this situation

OR Both emc0152GB

102. Sage Grouse Hunting Permits - Utah Sage Grouse wildlife biologists continue to assess populations as healthy allowing the 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to issue Sage Grouse hunting licenses in selected areas of Utah - within the BLM's Sage 

Grouse identified habitat.

UT Both rmc0003GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-39

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. Remove Lemhi County from the area of concern if there is a viable populations and adequate habitat. All Both cfc0007GB

2. Preliminary Priority Habitat Map is inaccurate. The area around the City of Salmon needs to be on the East side of the 

Salmon River. Check with the BLM working group for a more accurate inventory.

All Both cfc0007GB

3. While the BLM is attempting to implement conservation measures for the benefit of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat, it 

is my hope that the NEPA requirement of accounting for the Human Environment and Economy is not forgotten.

All Both rmc0025GB

4. Also, I'd urge the BLM to understand the disadvantages of implementing inflexible, one-size-fits-all standards. It's important 

that an adaptive, local, case-by-case approach is utilized, with predator control being a part of that approach, for imporving 

sage-grouse habitat.

All Both rmc0025GB

5. The time of allowable multiple-use activities should be flexible based on monitoring and observation, not across-the-board, 

inflexible regulations.

All Both rmc0025GB

6. For sage grouse, habitat needs must be defined with quantifiable vegetative objectives (as stated above). The habitat needs to 

be identified, and regulatory measures put in place that will conserve and enhance critical lek, nesting, brood rearing and 

winter habitat. High quality habitat on private and public lands throughout the range of sage grouse needs to be maintained.

All Both rmc0024GB

7. In preparing the EIS/SEIS, BLM should analyze the benefit of adaptive, case-by-case approaches that incorporate local 

expertise and provide management flexibility.

All BLM rmc0021GB

8. - The threats faced by Sage Grouse vary by region. - In some regions, human development may be a dominant threat, where 

in others predation may be the primary threat issue to be addressed; - In some regions, the loss of lands with large areas of 

sagebrush may be the primary threat to be addressed. In such areas, integrating sheep grazing into sagebrush steppe 

management systems, such as in Southwest Montana, could provide landowners and BLM land managers with a eco-friendly

and sustainable means of planning and implementing habitat enrichment in sagebrush steppe. A case-by-case management 

approach such as this would reduce the need for periodic inputs of large amounts of federal funds for mechanical and 

chemical treatment of federal lands, while benefiting local Montana ranchers, including sheep producers, as well as benefit 

rural communities; - As such, the BLM should analyze the benefit of the present RMPs, which allow for range management 

flexibility and the tailoring of approaches to site-specific conditions, knowledge, and culture; - And, as such, MWGA's 

membership feels that BLM should analyze the benefits of managing sage grouse according to the needs of individual 

populations, and analyze the draw backs of range-wide and meta population management plans, See, Launchbaugh, et. al, 

lnteractions Among Livestock Grazing;

All BLM rmc0021GB

9. Finally, MWGA's membership recommends that BLM analyze the burdens on local landowners and local governments that 

would be caused by implementing, in sage grouse management plan, redundant and duplicative wildlife protections already 

contained in Wilderness Study Area plans, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern plans, Endangered Species Act plans, 

critical habitat for threated and endangered species act plans, and other provisions of existing land use plans (LUPs).

All BLM rmc0021GB

10. MWGA's membership recommends tbat the BLM analyze, as part of its proposed alternative, plans for the eventual removal 

of Sage Grouse from Endangered Species List and/or "Warranted but Precluded" list.

All BLM rmc0021GB

11. - MWGA's membership understands that Sage Grouse are currently on the "Warranted but Precluded" list; - MWGA's 

membership also understands that there is potential for the listing of the species on the Endangered Species List as soon as 

All BLM rmc0021GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-40 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the year 2015; - In light of this, MWGA recommends that the alternatives analyzed and set forth by BLM in the EIS should 

include protocols for eventual de-listing of this species from any federal list. These protocols should analyze and include: a. 

A defined monitoring methodology that is both standardized and continuous; b. Provisions that incorporate monitoring data 

and findings into the management plans developed; c. Progressive benchmarks leading to de-listing. These benchmarks may 

be population based or based on other success indicators. As these benchmarks are reached, management actions should be 

altered accordingly until, eventually, de-listing from the candidate list is possible; d. and once sage grouse are removed from 

the ESA candidate list, land use plans should be adjusted accordingly to allow for more multiple use.

12. MWGA's membership recommends that the BLM adopt clear and concise sage definitions as part of its management plans, 

as well as to

All BLM rmc0021GB

13. - MWGA's membership understands that lack of clarity and exactitude in federal management plans provides the easiest 

avenue for environmental groups to take to get into federal courts and to file lawsuits. - To mitigate the already high risk of 

radical groups such as Western Watersheds filing suit on the BLM's efforts to revise its resource management plans that 

cover sage-grouse habitat, MWGA's membership recommends the BLM undertake the following: i. Make any definitions 

clear and concise; j. Completely define what constitutes a "Iek"; k. Account for the differences in cliffs and elevation; I. Clearly 

define how barriers are to be established; m. Provide flexibility in buffer distance; n. Measure each buffer from a consistent 

and clearly defined starting point; o. Do not use inflexible, arbitrary calendar dates for multiple-use activities, such as for 

grazing start dates; p. Apply the recommendations set forth in (i) through (o) above to nesting issues and to brooding issues;

q. Clearly define Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) so that BLM personnel can weigh the suitability of sage grouse 

preservation value against preserving other values; and r. PPH boundaries should be adjusted to exempt certain pockets of 

land based on topography adaptability and behavior of sage grouse such that 100% of polygon is necessarily Sage Grouse 

habitat.

All BLM rmc0021GB

14. The public scoping meeting for the sage grouse management EIS was held in Reno, Nevada on January 30, 2012. We 

understand that the scoping period began in December 2011; however, the opportunity for the public (located in Reno) to 

gain knowledge about the project (at the January 30 meeting) and the close of the public comment period (February 7) is 

extremely short. We request that the public scoping period be extended for an additional 60 days.

All Both rmc0027GB

15. WLC understands that the BLM recently issued two instruction memorandums; IM 2012-043 and IM 2012-044. These IMs 

were issued without public review or input and should be rescinded until the EIS process has been completed. The IMs 

should be prepared based on the data collected and analyzed in the EIS process. It is unclear exactly what policies and 

procedures would be implemented by these IMs. The policies and procedures proposed by these IMs are considered a 

federal action and should have the appropriate NEPA review and public input prior to their implementation.

All Both rmc0027GB

16. It is unclear whether the report produced by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team, A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures, December 21, 2011; will be implemented in conjunction with the IMs that were 

issued, or if the conservation measures recommended in the report will be analyzed in the proposed EIS. The full extent of 

these conservation measures (as identified by the National Technical Team) were not fully disclosed nor made easily 

available to the public during the project's public scoping period.

All Both rmc0027GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-41

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

17. Due to the controversial and complex nature of the proposed action, we request the public comment period on the Draft 

EIS be a minimum 120 days, to allow adequate time to review the DEIS and associated supporting documentation.

All Both rmc0027GB

18. We are certainly concerned about the future management strategy of the Sage Grouse, which is an indicator species. Its 

status greatly impacts the ability of our constituents to utilize natural resources on our public lands. We are very concerned 

that the ruling by the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in March of 2010, has caused the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to initiate this planning process, which we believe to be premature and politically

motivated by conflict oriented activists.

All Both rmc0034GB

19. We ask that the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy mandate an "active" rather than "passive" management 

approach to vegetation and predators, which includes involvement of local officials. Utah developed an effective, 

collaborative statewide management plan in 2009 that needs to be given a chance to succeed. Also, due consideration must 

be given to what has been learned and accomplished by the collaborative local working groups. Please include these 

resources in this strategy.

All Both rmc0034GB

20. I believe that all federal departments and agencies that manage sage-grouse habitat should be involved in the process of 

creating the BLM Conservation Strategy for the Greater Sage-Grouse; the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Departments of Energy and 

Defense.

All Both rmc0020GB; 

rmc0004RM

21. Likewise I believe that all federal lands with Greater Sage-Grouse habitat should be included in the planning process, 

including the Mono Basin and Columbia Basin Distinct Population Segments of sage-grouse.

All Both rmc0020GB; 

rmc0004RM

22. Management standards must be based on the best available science, and federal planners must ensure that all planning 

documents make the same prescriptions for land uses across sage-grouse range. Designation of priority and general habitat 

areas, as recommended by the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT), and implementing recommendations in the 

NTT sage-grouse report in each land use plan will accomplish this task.

All Both rmc0020GB; 

rmc0004RM

23. The historical range is virtually unchanged in the past 100 years .BLM range stewardship has been good since the Taylor 

Grazing Act. Current range conditions are not neglected but as close to pristine historical conditions as you can get.

All Both rmc0041GB

24. Eureka Moly, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Moly, has submitted a Plan of Operations to develop the Mount 

Hope Project in Eureka County, Nevada. The Mount Hope Project is one of the Nation's most promising and important 

molybdenum resources. The BLM, Mount Lewis Field Office/Battle Mountain District Office, has prepared a Draft EIS for this 

project. The public comment period for the Draft EIS is 90-days long (from December 2,2011 to March 1,2012.) Given the 

scale of the proposed action (e.g., implementation of the recommendations in the NTT Report) we would suggest that a 

public comment period of at least the same duration as that provided the public on the Mt Hope project is warranted. The 

proposed conservation measures in the NTT Report will affect 68 RMPs in ten western states and roughly 47 million acres 

of BLM-administered lands with sage-grouse habitat. By comparison, the Mount Hope Project will impact about 8,000 acres 

of public land.

All Both rmc0037GB

25. General Moly recognizes the importance of the BLM's proposed sage-grouse conservation measures and appreciates the 

time constraints associated with preparing the EIS/SEIS to evaluate the proposed conservation measures. However, given 

All Both rmc0037GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-42 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the far reaching ramifications of these measures, it is critical that General Moly and other stakeholders have adequate time 

to review and develop meaningful comments for this scoping process. Therefore, we respectfully request the comment 

period be extended to allow at least 30 days for evaluation of the soon-to-be published DOW habitat maps.

26. national greater sage grouse planning strategy meetings are only in the states ofnv, id, mt, or, ut, ca, BUT YOU HAVE THE 

NERVE TO CALL THIS A NATIONAL PLAN. WHY ARE YOU LEAVING OUT THE OTHER 44 STATES, WHOSE 

TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING TAXES TO SUPPORT THESE BIRDS, THAT WILL BE GROWN AND THEN SHOT TO 

DEATH BY HUNTER/GUN WACKOS.

All BLM emc0020GB

27. THIS PLAN STINKS THIS SPECIES IS BEING "BROUGHT BACK"AND RESTORED SO THAT YOU CAN THEN OFFER 

IT UP FOR SELLING LICENSES TO SHOOT IT AND MURDER IT.

All BLM emc0020GB

28. JEAN PUBLIC THIS IS MY COMMENT FO RTHE PUBLIC RECORD. I CANNOT FLY FROM ONE OF THE STATES THA 

TTHIS AGENCY HAS IGNORED EVEN THOUGH YOU SEND THE BILLS TO NJ. YOUI CERTAINLY HAVE 

SCHEDULED NO MEETINGS AT ALL IN 44 STATES. YOU ARE DISCRIMIMNATING. TAXATION WITHOUT 

REPRESENTATION IS GOING ON HERE. YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO SCAM PUBLIC COMMENT WITH THESE 

MEETINGS. YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST TAXPAEYRS IN THE 44 OTHER STATES.

All BLM emc0020GB

29. Thank you for considering our remarks to not list the sage grouse or to lock up lands that are currently being managed to 

increase tbe population of this species.

All Both rmc0001GB

30. It is obvious to those watching the politics that the sage grouse is being used as a solution to achieve other objectives. 

Threats to the sage grouse habitat have been identified as 1) wildfire and invasive species, 2) energy development, 3) fencing 

and livestock grazing, 4) transmission lines, 5) nesting and brood rearing, 6) sagebrush structure, 7) sagebrush understory, 8) 

predators and many more. Some in leadership positions would mandate that the sage grouse areas be locked up to prevent

any threat that may affect the population and therefore energy opportunities associated \vith the habitat needs would be 

eliminated. Through the Endangered Species Act, all that is needed is to list a species that is thriving in Utah to accomplish 

a political gain. On the other hand, leadership will limit or remove activities such as predator control that could increase the 

species continuation.

All Both rmc0001GB

31. The BLM recently issued two instruction memorandums; IM 2012-043 and IM 2012-044. These IMs were issued without 

public review or input and should be withdrawn until, at a minimum, the EIS process has been completed. The IMs should be 

prepared based on the data collected and analyzed in the EIS process. It is unclear exactly what direction these IMs provide 

the BLM, or what specific policies and procedures would be implemented by these IMs. The policies and procedures 

proposed by these IMs are considered a federal action and should have the appropriate NEPA review and public input prior 

to their implementation.

All Both rmc0035GB

32. The full extent of the proposed action analyzed in the EIS is unclear and not fully identified. It is unclear whether the report 

produced by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team, A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures, December 21, 2011; and associated conservation measures will be implemented in conjunction with the IMs that 

were issued, or if the conservation measures recommended in the report will be analyzed in the proposed EIS. The full 

extent of these conservation measures (as identified by the National Technical Team) and associated appendices were not 

fully disclosed nor made easily available to the public during the project's public scoping period (e.g. the link to download 

All Both rmc0035GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-43

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

report appendices was not accessible/valid). Additional time is needed and required by the public to review the conservation 

measures, in conjunction with the priority/general habitat maps (when they are published), prior to the close of the public 

comment period. Additional information is requested from the BLM to clearly identify the intent of these conservation 

measures and how they will affect current uses of public land. The appendices identified in the report, A Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures, December 21, 2011, was not available for download, public review, or 

comment. The entire document (including the appendices) should be made easily accessible and available to the public.

33. I understand that the EIS will analyze the conservation measures as identified in the report, A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures, December 21, 2011. The EIS should analyze each individual measure and how each 

measure individually affects industry and the environment. The EIS should not "lump" all conservation measures into "one 

alternative" and make a decision on "all measures implemented or nothing". Measures (and project alternatives analyzed in 

the EIS) should be specific to each industry within each State.

All Both rmc0035GB

34. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) decision to list the species and the BLM's ROD on the proposed EIS are 

connected actions. The EIS must be completed prior to the FWS' decision to list. The FWS cannot make a decision to list 

until after the EIS has been completed and a ROD issued.

All Both rmc0035GB

35. - Box Elder County does not want to be lumped into a national one-size fits all approach. We feel the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the United State Forest Service (USFS) should use flexible standards, look at conditions and 

recognize local concerns and fit the landscape. - We request that you involve the local community. Include the local 

Conservation Resource Management and the local sage-grouse work group which has approximately 10 years of data. The 

BLM and USFS should not ignore the information obtained from the working group in the area. They are the stewards of the 

land. The BLM and USFS should find ways to interface with the work group. - We request that the BLM and USFS work with 

the State Department of Agriculture who also has the tools to improve management on the ground.

All Both rmc0023GB

36. Monitoring and documentation should span at least five to six years because of the weather conditions. The methodology of 

monitoring should be flexible enough to allow local input and modifications on the adaptivity of the species.

All Both rmc0023GB

37. Range improvements to benefit species and maintained by permitees who hold Federal Range Maintenance agreements 

should be allowed mitigation credits. We strongly support olI-site mitigation for projects that impact sage-grouse habitat.

All Both rmc0023GB

38. - Federal agencies shall cooperate with state agencies, local government and those allowed by agency actions to monitor the 

progress of the sage-grouse to remove the species from endangered species Iisting. Once again we as Box Elder County 

Commissioners ask for cooperating agency status and look forward to working with the BLM and USFS.

All Both rmc0023GB

39. I write on behalf of Barrick Gold of North America to formally request an extension of the public comment period for the 

Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements to 

Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans, 76 Fed. Reg. 

77008-11 (Dec. 9, 2011). At present, the comment period is set to close on February 7,2012.

All Both rmc0011GB, 

emc0002RM

40. The reasons for this requested extension are that the Technical Team's report, the two instruction memoranda, and the 

documents, materials, data, studies, records of personal communication, and other materials cited and relied on in the 

report and memoranda were not available for public review at the time the notice of intent was published. As a result, the 

All Both rmc0011GB, 

emc0002RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-44 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

public, including Barrick, was not afforded adequate time to investigate and consider the effects of those policies on the 

scoping process and to prepare comments accordingly.

41. the greater sage grouse habitat mapping process, by both BLM and state wildlIfe agencies has not been completed and made 

available for public review. Based on comments made by Nevada Department of Wildlife and BLM officials at a public meeting 

in Carson City on January 18, 2012, it is our understanding that this process is likely to be completed within the next 30 day. 

This information will be vital in determining the potential impacts of the proposed process. These new measures could have 

a dramatic effect on the use of Nation's public lands, and thus, the public should be afforded an adequate opportunity to 

investigate and comment on the new measures before they are incorporated into the scoping process.

All Both rmc0011GB, 

emc0002RM

42. We are appreciative of BLM's efforts to address this important issue in a timely and reasonable manner. However, in order 

to ensure that the informed decision making and informed public participation purposes of NEPA are fully implemented for 

this project, we respectfully request that the public comment period be extended by 60 to 90 days. We also request that 

BLM and the other public agencies supporting this effort promptly make available to interested persons all of the references, 

data, methodology, sources, and other items relied upon for the statements and conclusions in the Technical Team's report 

and in the December 27, 2011 instruction memoranda so that these items can also be evaluated during the public notice and 

comment period.

All Both rmc0011GB, 

emc0002RM

43. Sage hens don't like big tall sage unless it has been grazed because of their weight and size they need a runway just like a B-52 

to get air-borne. They need wild flowers and the insects the flowers attract to get the chicks started. Grazing=flowers. 

Western Watersheds, crows, ravens, coyotes, and all hawks are the sage hens worst enemies.

All Both rmc0010GB

44. Consider not only the environmental consequences in the NEPA analysis but also the impacts to the human environmental 

equally, including not only economic impacts but also grazing, mining, oil and gas as well as recreation.

All Both rmc0004GB

45. In planning and implementation of the long and short term Sage Grouse Strategy NEPA and CEQ guidelines will be followed 

allowing of local, state and tribal inclusion as cooperating and coordination agency status. This includes participation in the 

interdisciplinary process and the timely and complete sharing of all data with cooperators. BLM as the lead agency will divulge 

and explain any deviation from state and local plans in writing and will also address and comment on the impact decisions will 

cause.

All Both rmc0004GB

46. Sage Grouse planning should set out bench marks and criteria for getting the sage grouse off of the warranted but precluded 

listing.

All Both rmc0004GB

47. Discussion about definitions has to take place. We need to be clear and concise as to what they mean. All Both rmc0004GB

48. Decisions should not use inflexible standards but instead promote the advantages of a case by case adaptive approach to 

create management decisions.

All Both rmc0004GB

49. Methodology of monitoring - should be flexible enough to allow local input and modifications on the adaptivity of the species. All Both rmc0004GB

50. Establish guideline to allow activities within a PPH if appropriate mitigation is offered. All Both rmc0004GB

51. Allow and use of exceptions, waivers and modifications to conservation measures based on criteria that are clearly defined 

and not subject to arbitrary change.

All Both rmc0004GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-45

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

52. In creating LUP amendments, priority mitigation credit will be allowed to resource users that contribute time and funds to 

projects, programs and work with other users or organizations private or governmental to coordinate land based activities 

including rangeland and watershed improvements that benefit the species.

All Both rmc0004GB

53. Exemptions should be considered for pre-existing activities including valid existing rights. All Both rmc0004GB

54. Other resource users will be given mitigation credit for cooperating and working in concert with permittees and state 

agencies to increase and maintain habitat for Sage Grouse.

All Both rmc0004GB

55. Alternatives that are least restrictive to multiple uses should have priority consideration. All Both rmc0004GB

56. Federal agencies shall cooperate with state agencies, local government and those allowed by agency actions to monitor the 

progress of the Sage Grouse to remove the species from any listing.

All Both rmc0004GB

57. 1. Complete Federal Agency communication, cooperation and coordination with local government and tribal plans including 

their direct input shall be allowed and also with state agencies: all who have legally applied for cooperative and coordination 

agency status. The communication, cooperation and coordination as stated will be adhered to at the maximum extent 

allowed by law at the predecisional/interdisciplinary and public review stages of this federal action.

All Both rmc0004GB

58. All federal decisions made will be directly addressed substantively in writing by the lead agency and based on supportable 

data part of which would consist of a cost benefit analysis for species preservation and how those costs or benefits would 

impact other species and human activities thereby the stability of our nation.

All Both rmc0004GB

59. If available, all data used in LUP amendments will first and primarily be local and State data collected on a case-by-case basis 

including. "priority mapping:" which shall consist of areas of actual Sage Grouse use.

All Both rmc0004GB

60. A defined methodolgoy for monitoring should be determined. The type and criteria for monitoring should be determined by 

the local area and those involved at the local and state level that have already been doing the work.

All Both rmc0004GB

61. Continued monitoring of species will be required but will not solve any problems if there is no flexibility through the LUP 

amendments to allow local input and modifications on the ground to compensate for the specie needs while managing for 

multiple use.

All Both rmc0004GB

62. In creating LUP amendments, priority mitigation credit wil be allowed to resource users that contribute time and funds to 

projects, programs and work with other users or organizations private or governmental to coordinate land based activities 

including rangeland and watershed improvements that benefit the species.

All Both rmc0004GB

63. 7. Any changes or modifications in LUP's will include the cooperating and coordinating agencies involved in the creation of 

the LUP and their input and local plans will be adhered to consistent with bullet point #1.

All Both rmc0004GB

64. Any LUP amendment to address Sage Grouse preservation should leave an amount of flexibility to allow for alternative 

actions otherwise the plan could prevent preservation instead of enhancement of species and habitat.

All Both rmc0004GB

65. In management decisions, those least restrictive to multiple use will be given priority consideration. Plan flexibility for case 

by case decisions will allow modifications as needed.

All Both rmc0004GB

66. Any plan strategy adopted will also consider existing planning actions addressing the local species requirements then as 

stated in Sec 4: (g) Monitoring; 1) The Secretary shall implement a system in cooperation with the States to monitor 

effectively for not less than five years the status of all species which have recovered to the point at which the measures 

All Both rmc0004GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-46 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary and which, in accordance with the provisions of this section have been 

removed from either of the lists published under subsection © to remove from such lists species for which the protections 

of the Act are no longer necessary.

67. If preservation is found to be fruitless for unmitigatable reasons: then implementation of or continuation of restrictive 

management practices that would impair multiple use goals would not be used or stopped.

All Both rmc0004GB

68. The Town of Junction is certainly concerned about the future management strategy of the Sage Grouse, which is an indicator 

species. Its status greatly impacts the ability of our constituents to utilize natural resources on our public lands. We are very 

concerned that the ruling by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in March of 2010 has caused the BLM and U.S. Forest Service 

to initiate this planning process, which we believe to be premature and politically motivated by conflict oriented activists.

All Both fxc0004GB

69. We are aware of the habitat and management requirement for sustained and increased population growth. We were 

impressed by the many years of extensive research and data collection on the Sage Grouse that USU has compiled.

All Both fxc0004GB

70. We are greatly concerned about the general health of Sage Grouse population in that it has critical impacts in obtaining 

utilization of natural resources including grazing, mining, oil extraction, timber cutting, recreation, and etc., which is 

important to our Region.

All Both fxc0004GB

71. We ask that the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy mandate and "active" rather than "passive" management 

approach to vegetation and predators, which include involvement of local officials.

All Both fxc0004GB

72. I urge you to use the best available science to protect Sage Grouse. I am particularly concerned about the impacts of off road 

vehicles, grazing, and road building.

All Both emc0195GB

73. I am writing to encourage you to adopt guidelines for BLM lands in the western US that protect the Greater Sage Grouse. 

You have an obligation to protect the Sage Grouse and its habitat on our public lands. Please use the best available scientific 

studies as you create these guidelines (e.g. information from the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team).

All Both emc0191GB

74. We would ask that the approach, explained in the accompanying letter, be added to the record for consideration as a 

workable alternative. I hope all states involved in the sage grouse issue can work together to set a new standard of action and 

consideration.

All Both rmc0047GB, 

rmc0013rm

75. The weight of this decision should be taken in the most professional and thorough way since it can, even with the least 

restrictive use changes, degrade the quality of life for those millions of residents living in the eleven western states where 

sage brush and sage grouse live. The endangered species act should be applied with the same responsibility as was brought 

forward in the hipocratic oath taken by many professionals as their mission statement, FIRST AND FOREMOST DUE NO 

HARM!!

All Both rmc0047GB, 

rmc0013rm

76. Almost all westerners would like to see more sage grouse numbers, but NOT at the cost to the people, and the economy, 

and to our freedom to access and to use public lands, that have historically accompanied other species listing. In the past, the 

federal govenments main approach has been to withdraw and protect habitat and let the listed species increase, more or less 

on it's own which usually takes decades.

All Both rmc0047GB, 

rmc0013rm

77. We have also been made aware of extensive efforts being done in Utah through the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Strategic 

Management Plan Committee who have done great projects to implement the BLM National Sage-Grouse Habitat 

All Both rmc0043GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-47

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Conservation Strategy. We would strongly recommend that the work of this committee as published in the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources (UDWR), 2009, Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Management Plan, Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication 09-17, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, are taken into consideration in your scoping and 

NEPA process.

78. We also note that Utah State University has been heavily involved in researching and documenting impacts on the Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat. Their science and local working group plans should be included in your scoping and NEPA efforts as 

well. (See http://utahcbcp.org/htm/groups/carbon)

All Both rmc0043GB

79. Lastly, with these local plans, there has been a great amount of effort to maintain local control and local input in regards to 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Sage-Grouse habitat management within our county, and we strongly recommend continued 

support of these local conservation efforts through following local management plans.

All Both rmc0043GB

80. Why are there no typical scenarios disclosed of a management problem (eg. Oil and gas drilling, livestock grazing, 

development) and how the BLM is thinking of addressing these threats to sage grouse and other sage-dependent species?

All Both rmc0039GB

81. For as the BLM sage grouse plan website claims: "maintaining and restoring sagebrush landscapes on public lands is the BLM's 

primary means of conserving sage grouse populations and one of its most important current programs." We are wary that 

the BLM is planning mere window-dressing of existing degrading practices in order to avoid sage grouse uplisting, rather than 

the deeper, systemic revamping of agency practices and an end to rubber-stamping of oil and gas leases, resort development 

concessions, livestock allotment plans, etc. that is really needed.

All Both rmc0039GB

82. The inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a major threat to the Greater sage grouse in the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Services "warranted but precluded" finding. The BLM needs to incorporate explicit and enforcable objectives and 

conservation measures that are the most likely to fully protect and recover sage grouse populations and habitat in Resource 

Management Plans, based on the best available science- as soon as possible (not just within three years.)

All Both rmc0039GB

83. Language in the new plan must be tightened to affirmatively ensure full protection of the Greater sage grouse. Language such 

as the BLM "shall," "will," and "must" - should be used instead of vague or voluntary terms such as "may" or "could."

All Both rmc0039GB

84. In 2010 the Fish and Wildlife Service identified as threats sage grouse face across their range, including; energy development, 

urbanization, agricultural development, and invasive plants. We would add to this list of detrimental imipacts that must be 

avoided; toxic herbicide use, pesticide use, road and electric utility corridors, poison baiting (not necessarily targetting sage 

grouse), shooting of sage grouse, and detrimental livestock grazing.

All Both rmc0039GB

85. Sage-grouse occur on a mix of public and private lands, as do sustainable livestock operations, therefore, any sage grouse 

conservation strategy on public land should consider the negative impacts that strategy may have on private land and the 

people who work there.

All Both rmc0028GB

86. The NOI does not discuss details for assessing or measuring the adequacy of conserving sage-grouse populations and 

habitats. The DEIS should describe conservation success in terms of maintaining or expanding current populations and 

distribution, and/or in terms of the recovery of declining or extirpated populations. The draft EIS should discuss the 

monitoring of populatins and habitats that will be required to track habitat and population trends, and thus the efficacy of the 

agnecies' conservation actions.

All Both rmc0028GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-48 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

87. The thought of millions of their habitat being utilized for oil drilling and access roads to such makes me sad and sick. Their 

numbers are disappearing at a rapid rate and what are we going to get before we stop it? Token little groups in little islands 

of sage brush? Or a few in zoos?

All Both emc0190GB

88. The public scoping meeting for the sage grouse management EIS was held in Reno, Nevada on January 30, 2012. We 

understand that the scoping period began in December 2011; however, the opportunity for the public to digest the 

ramifications of the project and make an informed comment in just a week (the close of the public comment period being 

February 7) is less than adequate. We request that the public scoping period be extended for an additional 60 days.

Nevertheless, we have some general points to make in the interim:

All Both rmc0029GB

89. One important point regarding any extension to or continuance of the process, is the lack of (promised) sage grouse priority 

habitat maps which would allow stakeholders using public lands to effectively evaluate which areas of direct and individual 

interest would be impacted by any of the BLM's proposed actions. We request that the Preliminary Priority Habitat and 

Preliminary General Habitat planning maps, showing designated sage grouse habitat, be made available as soon as possible but 

at least 3D-days prior to the close of the public scoping period so we can have an opportunity to review and comment 

specifically and generally. Many groups in Nevada have been asking to view these maps, but NDOW has indicated that the 

maps are not completed yet. In order for WEDC to adequately assess possible impacts to its exploration and mining

projects, the locations of any "Priority Habitat Areas" must be identified. Without this information we will not know how we 

might be affected.

All Both rmc0029GB

90. WEDC understands that the BLM recently issued two instruction memorandums; IM 2012-043 and IM 2012-044. These IMs 

were issued without public review or input and WEDC believes that they should be rescinded until the EIS process has been 

completed. The policies and procedures proposed by these IMs are considered a federal action and should have the 

appropriate NEPA review and public input prior to their implementation. It is also unclear whether the report produced by 

the Sage-grouse National Technical Team (A Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures, December 

21, 2011) will be implemented in conjunction with he Ims that were issued, or if the conservation measures recommended 

in the report will be analyzed in the proposed EIS.

All BLM rmc0029GB

91. Priority Habitat Areas need to be qualified. What is the definition? What data were used to determine the boundary? What 

is the bird density, how was it determined and is it a reliable estimate? Who made the determination and what were their 

qualifications to do so?

All Both rmc0029GB

92. Implementation of any sage grouse conservation should not require any industry (including mining) to implement mitigation 

in perpetuity. If mitigation in perpetuity is required, the full details of what is considered "mitigation in perpetuity" needs to 

be clearly identified.

All Both rmc0029GB

93. All mining operations strive to implement best management practices whenever possible; it makes good business sense. Best 

management practices and all measures identified through the EIS process need to proven and tested methods so as to be 

feasible, practical, and economical to both small and large mining operations, to exploration projects and to all types of 

industries (including small ranchers and local governments).

All Both rmc0029GB

94. Mitigation of impacts to sage grouse habitat by a proposed project must be included if the government is serious about 

considering the socioeconomic impacts of their actions. Creating new habitat or relocating habitat to where past habitat had 

All Both rmc0029GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-49

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

been previously destroyed would appear to be a win-win scenario for both the sage grouse and those that utilize public lands. 

If the results of mitigation equate to no net decrease or even an increase in sage grouse habitat wouldn't that benefit both the 

bird and our society as a whole?

95. A statewide mitigation bank, for all entities to donate to, might be beneficial. Such a statewide bank would centralize funding 

for broader habitat restoration projects. All mitigation requirements, whether a statewide bank or mitigation of individual 

projects, needs to be affordable to all those using public lands. No one group should be targeted or exempted from the cost 

of mitigation efforts.

All Both rmc0029GB

96. Due to the controversial and complex nature of the proposed action, we request the public comment period on the Draft 

EIS be a minimum 120 days. To allow adequate time to review the DEIS and associated supporting documentation.

All Both rmc0029GB

97. Please extend comment periods. Maps, GIS Data, etc are not even available online. All Both cfc0003GB

98. I am Gracian Uhalde c/o John Uhalde & Co Ranch we would like to be involved in any and all meetings regarding and for 

permiting holders. Phone (775)296-2317.

All Both cfc0011GB

99. The Sage-grouse should be protected as if it were endangered and then ultamatly designated as such. This would also 

greatly help out with other issues such as southern Utah coal and wilderness.

All Both cfc0014GB

100. Preliminary review of the scoping documents available on January 19, 2012 reveals little or no planned agency coordination 

with county governments as required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPAl. Sec. 101 [42 USC § 

4331] (a) of NEPA clearly states that local governments have equal consideration during the seoping process. The section 

also states that the Act intends to, "create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements ofpresent and future generations of Americans," In other 

words social and economic requirements are to receive equal consideration to environmental requirements.

All Both rmc0038GB

101. The Federal Lands Management Policy Act (FLPMA) also contains explicit language about coordination with local 

government. Title II, Sec. 202(c)(9) states in part, "...assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans 

that are germane in the development ofland use plans for public lands; ... " Lassen County has an approved land use plan and 

as such should be included as an equal partner with the other agencies involved in the national greater sage-grouse planning 

strategy. As BLM and Forest Service land use plans are revised to further the conservation of sage grouse they must also 

coordinate with the Lassen and other county land use plans to ensure agreement between the plans.

All Both rmc0038GB

102. The NEPA process for the National Sage-Grouse Strategy must include county government to identify, mitigate or avoid 

negative economic impacts to affected counties.

All Both rmc0038GB

103. Sage-grouse issue should be reduced to local working groups because each area has its own differences of soils, precipitation, 

altitute and environment.

All Both cfc0027GB

104. Don't overlook in the evaluation or planning process, the work that has already been done with the working group. To 

ignore the work of the local working groups would be a significant waste of time and data. The planning stratagy should 

spread from existing successful efforts to fix habitat and success of the birds.

All Both cfc0028GB

105. The Utah Farm Bureau has provided comments. This is in addition to them. As a participant in the PARM, CCARM and 

SWARM I have witnessed first hand the effects of predation on Sage-grouse numbers. Red Fox, coyotes, eagles, ravens and 

All Both cfc0029GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-50 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

crows are devastating to grouse. The PARM working group research has shown that predator control is effective in 

increasing grouse numbers. The re-introduction of Sage-grouse into Strawberry Valley was made possible because of 

predator control (red fox). Predators are a much higher threat than livestock grazing.

106. Local citizens working together to resolve local and site specific issues offers the best chance for success. Considerable work 

has already been accomplished at the local level in planning for improved habitat management. To date the agencies have not 

implemented the majority of these planning efforts. Agencies should prioritize and implement these measures before 

increasing regulatory control that often paralyzes needed action.

All Both emc0202GB

107. Elko County believes that in recent years the BLM and the USFS has not taken the time and provided the effort to fully 

evaluate the positive influences that multiple uses have on the federally managed public lands. Elko County believes that there 

are conservatoin methods and policies that can be implemented while preserving the multiple use concept on all public lands. 

We believe that wildlife conservation and land stewardship has been a common practice of miners, ranchers, farmers, 

recreationist and the general populations in the rural areas of the west since the first pioneers and settlers. Many public land 

users have directly experienced the dramatic policy changes and public land management practices that have been made by 

the BLM and USFS restricting or curtailing livestock grazing and other multiple uses and also physically witnessed the loss of 

wildlife in recent years. Many of these changes in policy and land management practices are primarily due to extremist 

preservationist group's plethora of law suits filed to prohibit multiple uses of public lands in the west.

All Both rmc0026GB

108. The BLM and the USFS states, once seen in great numbers across sagebrush landscapes of the West, sage-grouse have 

declined in number over the past one hundred years because of the loss and degradation of sagebrush habitats essential for 

their survival. Greater Sage-Grouse now occupy only about 56% of the habitat that was available to them before the arrival 

of settlers of European descent. Elko County in part agrees with the loss and degration of the sagebrush habitat portion of 

the statement, however, we believe that the decline of populations and loss of habitat and degradation has occurred in more 

recent times over the past 30 years predominatly due to changes in public land use policies implemented by the BLM and the 

USFS.

All Both rmc0026GB

109. The BLM and the USFS state that they will use the most current science for the analysis, including: The Greater Sage-Grouse: 

Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitat (Knick and Connelly, eds. 2010). The BLM and USFS will 

also use The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' (WAFWA) Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (2004) and Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (2010), as 

well as the BLM's National Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy). Elko County believes that the BLM and the USFS must also 

recognize and utilize local and regional historical data and documentation in the development of the Sage-Grouse habitat 

conservation and preservation initiative.

All Both rmc0026GB

110. Elko County believes that there are many scientific and philosophical questions that must be asked and answered prior to the 

implementation of conservation and preservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse habitat planning strategies. Is the current 

decline in wildlife caused by human impacts on public lands or are they a normality of nature? Many would like to believe that 

most of the west prior to settlement was abundant and profuse with wildlife and wildlife habitat. There have been many 

government sanctioned and funded explorations and settlements made in the 1800's into the west that document that there 

was no such abundance of wildlife in the region. Many explorer's and settlers journals documented the widespread lack of 

All Both rmc0026GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-51

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

wildlife to sustain even the explorer's expeditions and travels. Many writing that they were forced to kill and harvest their 

own horses and dogs for food. As is well documented we know that wildlife migrate and move to habitat as needed for life. 

Could the changes in the wildlife and wildlife habitat over that past 100 years as the biologist state, been a common or natural 

occurrence? Does the presence of humans really have significant impact over such a diverse community of wildlife? Why do 

we believe that ecosytems that create such a habitat are so vulnerable, weak and fragile that they cannot survive human 

presence? Do the wildlife biologists and scientists have sufficient pertinent, credible and reliable data available encompassing 

the past 200 years to establish baselines as to exactly what the wildlife populations were in specific regions prior to the 

recent years that indicate declines?

111. Elko County believes that the initiative must develop historic baselines and utilize all available data in the development of

planning strategies. This would include the idea that perhaps the wildlife biologists and scientists do not have all of the 

knowledge that would warrant the listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse as an endangered species. Elko County agrees with the 

BLM and the USFS, that measures should be incorporated into planning strategies that will help protect the Greater 

Sage-Grouse and its habitat along with all other wildlife and wildlife habitat. However, we believe that the USF&WS and 

NDOW should also consider the lack of authenic data that would refute the concept that this decline is a natural occurrence 

prior to formulating a decision that will impact many western communities and their economies. Elko County also believes 

and states that any planning strategies developed should not reduce, decrease or any way further restrict the multiple use 

concept on federally managed public lands. Elko County believes that during the deveopment of the planning strategies local 

customs, historical uses and the economies must be comprehensively evaluated and considered prior to the implementation 

of any new planning objective.

All Both rmc0026GB

112. It disturbs Elko County that the BLM has internally implemented an interim planning strategy Greater Sage-Grouse and its 

habitat, outlined in the December 27th, 2011 Instruction Memorandum 2012-043. This memorandum was written and 

developed without public input or any other agency direction. We believe that the interim planning directives were 

developed solely by the BLM source without express public input and outside agency direction or supervision and will cause 

un-necessary hardship to public land users. The BLM should expel the interim policy and follow the planning process to 

develop the planning strategies in accordance with NEPA and the proposed initiative.

All BLM rmc0026GB

113. The Greater Sage-Grouse listing issue potentially proposes severe negative impacts to many states, counties, communities 

and regions of the west. We believe that the USF&WS and state wildlife management agencies along with the BLM and USFS 

must evaluate all of the potential negative economic and cultural impacts prior to making arbitrary and capricious decisions 

involving multiple uses and planning on public lands. Elko County will continue to participate and remain involved throughout 

the process as a coordinating/cooperating agency and request to be included in all correspondence concerning this issue.

All Both rmc0026GB

114. I would like to see Township, Range, Section displayed on the NDOW Habitat Categorization Map so that I can determined 

where my private land is and allotment information to know how this plan is going to affect my operations.

All Both emc0196GB

115. Since it is so important I strongly believe open public hearings should be conducted so that the total impact on areas custom 

culture and economy can be represented.

All Both cfc0030GB

116. The Endangered Species Act has fallen heavily on the Great Basin. Charges, under NEPA, have been that livestock grazing is 

endangering species including sage grouse. Were sage grouse listed, it would have the same effect listing the spotted owl had 

All Both cfc0030GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-52 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

on the Pacific Northwest timber industry and related economy

117. Of course I want to protect sage grouse, and all the sage brush obligates. However I believe this can be done while still 

responsibly using natural resources on public lands.

All Both emc0171GB

118. Our nation and state agencies have determined that sage grouse populations are declining due to loss of habitat. Actual 

scientific studies used to draw these conclusions have not been made readily available to the public. The public needs this 

information in order to participate in public land management in a meaningful way.

All Both emc0171GB

119. Another rumored management strategy is to restrict surface disturbance to less than 3% in areas with sage grouse habitat. 

That is very little surface disturbance considering the many surface disturbing activities conducted on public lands. Many 

areas have long ago surpassed this amount of disturbance. Such limited disturbance goes directly against the BLM 

multiple-use mandate. If this restriction stays in place it is equivalent to setting aside vast acreages of land solely for the 

purpose of sage grouse habitat. I request that the impacts of sage grouse conservation measures to the BLM multiple-use 

mandate be fully analyzed in the FEIS.

All BLM emc0171GB

120. The previous scope of science was limited to the stating of opinion of impacts as a belief without actually testing the 

hypotheical of actual effect as these few examples of current research show.

All Both cfc0010GB

121. I want agencies to do their comprehensive plans on the same schedule. This is possible! It is frustrating to have hearing 

where various agencies fumble about our plan won't be completed until "X" while other agencies are using data that is about 

the very same birds and lek sites.

All Both cfc0037GB

122. Continue to promote citizen education that young people can access. Sage grouse are for their future but if they aren't aware

of the species they won't work to protect them.

All Both cfc0037GB

123. Decide when and how data will be updated and publsize the schedule so citizens can know where the populations are and 

how they are doing.

All Both cfc0037GB

124. We encourage strongly to use the work of the local Sage-grouse Working Groups in your planning process and as you 

implement your plans. They have done a great deal of work and have several research projects that could be very useful. 

Todd Black, Nicki Frwy and others from USSU would be good contacts. Please do not try to reinvent the wheel.

All Both cfc0038GB

125. Also we need to make sure that all of the knowledge, expertise, and information from the State Advisory Committee for 

Sage-grouse in Idaho and the local Working Groups is included in whatever Idaho comes up with for a new or amended state 

plan.

All Both cfc0042GB

126. The states regulate wildlife, this is not a migratory species so interstate commerce does not apply. States that wish to protect 

this species can dio it through their game and fish agencies.

All Both emc0177GB

127. We fully support all sound scientific decision making as well as multiple use management of public lands. All Both emc0180GB

128. I am very much in favor of protecting sage grouse throughout our public lands using sound science. All Both emc0161GB

129. You are intentionally shifting the focus from management that complies with the ESA to management that greatly expands 

your power, and reduces my freedom. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044 reports that the sage-grouse planning 

strategy will "maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations," which is consistent with 

All Both emc0160GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-53

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the ESA. That same Memorandum references A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures and 

implements its guidelines. That Report endorses a goal based upon existing numbers to "sustain these populations." The 

Report shifts the goal to "sustain" current populations, rather than to maintain "sustainable" populations to avoid extinction 

as required by the ESA. So, the Memorandum states that the goal of sage-grouse planning is to manage for "sustainable" 

populations, but deceptively expands that goal by instructing all BLM field officers in all program areas to comply with an 

alternative goal to "sustain" current populations, 350,000 sage-grouse (70 times as many as the "sustainable" number of 

5,000). The purpose for the sage-grouse planning effort is reportedly to implement management guidelines through land use 

plans that will reduce the need to list the species under the ESA. Thus, the overarching population goal for sage-grouse must 

be based upon the ESA requirement to maintain sustainable populations that are not at risk of extinction, not to maintain 

existing populations that are far larger. The scope of the planning effort, and associated issues to be addressed, are 

constrained by the overarching goal.

130. The overall planning process anticipates managing to maintain or enhance sage-grouse habitat to support 75% of the current 

breeding population. This is still 52 times as many birds as would be needed to meet the requirements of the ESA. The land 

area proposed to support the 75% breeding population is 120 times larger than the area needed to maintain a sustainable 

population of 5,000 birds. You are using the sage-grouse planning process to invoke severe resource use restrictions across 

a vast landscape, when you are fully aware that compliance with the ESA would require protection for far fewer birds on a 

far smaller area. Your planning rules are intended to control people, not to prevent sage-grouse from being listed.

All Both emc0160GB

131. These proactive measures need to be based solely on the best and most reliable current science with no special interest 

threat or agenda driven decisions.

All Both emc0114GB

132. Current local land uses need to be considered, with mitigation factors worked around these current uses. Local land users 

need to be utilized in forming these decisions and implementing the work on the ground.

All Both emc0114GB

133. I am not sure if it is possible for the BLM and USFS to fully implement the regulatory mechanisms available asked for by the 

FWS to ensure greater sage-grouse conservation

All Both emc0070GB

134. The Harney County Court would like to submit the following comments and questions for consideration during the scoping 

process for the Planning Process for Sage-Grouse. The Court will be providing these questions to the Lakeview, Vale and 

Burns Districts as portions of this county are in all three districts. We have requested to be a participating agency with the 

Burns District process and would request to be able to participate where we can with the Lakeview and Vale Districts, 

particularly in areas of concern that are known to be different between the two districts. We would also like to request that 

the EIS be written from the positive rather than as a document that discourages or prohibits actions. The opportunity to 

prepare this EIS as one that enhances and enables should be one actively pursued!

All Both emc0071GB

135. The January 10 BLM press release stated: "The BLM has identified the following preliminary issues to address in its 

environmental analysis: greater sage-grouse habitat management, fluid minerals, coal mining, hard rock mining, mineral 

materials, rights-of way, renewable energy development, wildfire, invasive species, grazing, off highway vehicle management 

and recreation." Harney County is concerned that a broad brush approach in applying increased regulations in a one size fits 

all approach may have many negative impacts to sagegrouse, sage-grouse habitat and the people living in the communities in 

these areas. We would like to begin to be able to address these various issues and wonder if any detailed information is 

All Both emc0071GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-54 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

available on each of these issues at this point in time and, if so, whether we might have access to the information or could 

arrange for a discussion on these topics. We understand that each and every one of the issues identified above may not be 

an issue on any particular district.

136. Various press releases have indicated that "more adequate regulatory mechanisms" are required. If this is the focus of the 

update what effort has been made to determine what is adequate? Is adequate the same for all areas or will it be tailored to 

different types of habitat?

All Both emc0071GB

137. How will the EIS analyze and balance the need for conservation on the several dozen other conservation plans for various 

species which ODFW has prepared? How will conflicting conservation strategies be considered for balance? i.e. fire is 

advantageous for some species and apparently not for sage grouse habitat.

All Both emc0071GB

138. It is our understanding that one or more Sage Grouse initiatives are being worked on today (one with the Oregon Cattlemen 

is an example). How will those proactive efforts be protected or coordinated with the EIS?

All Both emc0071GB

139. Will the BLM be developing CCA’s in any locations on the District? Will the EIS include this as an option? Will the EIS 

acknowledge or coordinate any CCA and CCAA effort?

All Both emc0071GB

140. In order for public scoping comments to be relevant and substantive, the public and potentially impacted stakeholders must 

have the basic information available to them the agency relies upon for their management decisions. Without this basic 

information the public and stakeholders are disadvantaged and potentially misinformed regarding the location, magnitude, 

and potential impacts of the proposed management policies.

All Both emc0077GB, 

emc0047RM

141. From the perspective of the Nevada Mining Association, our members and the public have not been provided adequate time 

to review and consider critical documents related to the potential impacts of incorporating new Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation measures into land use plans and land management plans. The Nevada Mining Association respectfully requests 

an extension to the scoping comment period to further review and evaluate the following documents: 1. On December 21, 

2011 the BLM issued a report prepared by National Technical Team titled "Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures", which outlines the many land management options and Sage-Grouse conservation measures BLM 

and USFS are considering for public lands in the west. This important document and the associated background material has 

not been formally vetted through a public process and, from our perspective, its importance has been understated by the 

BLM. This document was released several weeks after the scoping comment period had begun and additional time is needed 

to fully consider its implications to our membership and public lands management. 2. Based upon the findings ofthe National 

Technical Team's report, two Instructional Memoranda were issued by the BLM. The first, "Greater Sage-Grouse Interim 

Management Policies and Procedures", was issued on December 22,2011 (IM number 2012-043). The second, titled "BLM 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy", was issued on December 27,2011 (IM number 2012-044). These 

documents were also released several weeks after the scoping comment period had commenced and additional time is 

needed to fully consider their implications to our membership and land management policy. 3. Critical to sage grouse and 

land management policy in Nevada is the delineation and identification ofpriority habitat in Nevada. The BLM is looking to the 

Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) for the preparation ofmaps for Sage-Grouse habitat boundaries. As ofthe date of 

this letter NDOW has yet to publicly release the habitat maps for Nevada and based on NDOW projections it is doubtful 

the maps will be available prior to the scoping deadline. In the BLM's own "Guide to Good Public Comments" it states: 

All Both emc0077GB, 

emc0047RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-55

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

"Citizens....often have valuable information about places and resources they consider important and the potential effects 

proposed federal actions may have on those places and resources". The Nevada Mining Association believes it is 

unreasonable for the BLM to expect comprehensive comments on EIS scoping without providing the public and stakeholders 

the benefit of knowing if their operations or interests are located within or in close proximity to priority Sage-Grouse 

habitat. These maps are clearly critical elements in ensuring BLM is obtaining relevant and substantive comments through the 

scoping process. For the reasons listed above the Nevada Mining Association respectfully requests a minimum 60 day 

extension of the scoping comment period once the habitat maps noted above are made publicly available. This will allow our 

members and the public to fully consider all of the information available in order to ensure the EIS considers all options and 

alternatives for the effective management of Sage-Grouse and its habitat.

142. The National Mining Association (NMA) requests a 90-day extension of the comment period regarding the Bureau of Land 

Management's (BLM) notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement to incorporate greater sage grouse 

conservation measures into land use plans and land management plans. 76 Fed. Reg. 77, 008 (Dec. 9, 2011).

All Both emc0075GB, 

emc0009RM

143. BLM published its recent Federal Register notice on the scoping process for the EIS on December 9, 2011, and requested 

comments by Feb. 7, 2012. However, at the time the notice was published, the agency had not yet made available several 

critical documents with a direct bearing on the scoping process. For example, four days before Christmas, the Department 

of the Interior (DOI) related a 74-page Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures without any public 

notice in the Federal Register. The critical report states that it is part of BLM's effort to develop new or revised regulatory 

mechanisms, through resource management plans, to conserve and restore the sage grouse and its habitat. Between the 

Christmas and New Year's holidays, BLM released, again without mention in the Federal Register, two significant instruction 

memoranda addressing land use planning and management of the sage grouse in the interim period until the RMPs are 

revised. In addition, at the time of the initial notice, all information on public hearings was still "to be determined," further 

complicating a timely and appropriate response based on the consideration of input from other stakeholders.

All Both emc0075GB, 

emc0009RM

144. While we note and appreciate the fact that BLM has extended the comment period until the scoping meetings are 

completed, this amount of time for such an important issue is insufficient. On the last major comment period regarding the 

status review of the sage grouse (which did not even involve any actual immediate policy changes), a 120-day comment 

period was provided after all of the relevant information was made available to the public. See 73 Fed. Reg. 23, 172 (April 29, 

2008) (extending the comment period to 120 days).

All Both emc0075GB, 

emc0009RM

145. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained above, it is appropriate BLM to allow at least a 120-day comment period from 

when the instruction memoranda become available. Therefore, we request: (1) an extension of the comment period on 

BLM's notice of intent to prepare and environmental impact statement to incorporate greater sage grouse conservation 

measures into land use plans and land management plans until May 7, 2012; and (2) suspension of the two BLM instruction 

memoranda until such time as public comments have been received and fully considered by the agency.

All Both emc0075GB, 

emc0009RM

146. It is my sincere hope that this study will be based on sound science and research regarding the greater sage-grouse and not 

be influenced by the politics or preferences of any one group of interested parties.

All Both emc0065GB

147. Please consider, as you put together strategies for the Sage Grouse issues, that these signature birds are a symbol of the wild 

places in this country, and as such should be carefully maintained. They also represent declining habitat, not just for Sage 

All Both emc0064GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-56 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Grouse, but for many others which share this same habitat. Once these habitats are gone, they will be difficult, if not 

impossible, to re-establish.

148. That land management is currently under the aegis of humans, wouldn't it be logical for humans to devise a carefully crafted 

long term program, which is based on actual science, (not politically motivated) and come up with a series of steps which can 

be directed toward restoration of dwindling numbers of animals and plants which populate this region?

All Both emc0064GB

149. Each local area should looked at on a local basis by the people. All Both cfc0062GB

150. We should not let money and environmental groups shove all this down our throats. All Both cfc0062GB

151. We need sage-grouse but we also need grazing and everything else we use these public lands for. All Both cfc0062GB

152. Why should someone in Nevada tell us how to handle our business in Utah. We need local input on this issue not across the 

board decisions.

All Both cfc0062GB

153. Please speak up and defend your positions so the general public knows you are promoting for all rather than giving inot the 

few selfish interests

All Both cfc0064GB

154. Another concern I have is with the heavily weighted attention that some 10+ groups or parties who may refer to themselves 

as conservation or environmental groups. These groups have a few well-organized leaders with good funding. However, they 

represent a relatively small group of people, a large majority of every community in west are supportive of these vocal and 

limiting groups. I hope the BLM recognizes this fact.

All Both cfc0065GB

155. Having spent some 49 years exploring and observing vast Oregon sagebrush/desert areas I have found two very specific 

areas to make my point - one of these areas is in the upper elevations of the Hart MT. NWR Through a period of 20-25 years 

ago an area with an elevation of 6000 to 6800 ft was covered with thick big sage, some bitterbrush, mahogany and some 

grass. No sage-grouse could be found. There were mule deer, but no antelope. Some 18-20 years ago a lightening caused 

wildlife cleanly burned a large area (Hot Fire) . About 15 years after the fire there hundreds of sage-grouse using the area. 

Antelope were also using the area. The landscape changes Sage-grouse cycle!

All Both cfc0067GB

156. The BLM, Forest Sevice, support groups and individuals need to document select limited areas where Sage-grouse survival 

factors can be enhanced.

All Both cfc0065GB

157. Please read our posted PRESS RELEASE below as it most certainly relates to mitigating the dire consequences of Sage 

Grouse impacting Barbed Wire fences --- as well as all Wildlife,Livestock & Humans; that additionally increases the longevity 

integrity of a wire barrier by eliminating impact damage by those that didn't SEE it. We'd be happy to send a free sample for 

an in hand evaluation of our FENCE-FLAG

All Both emc0014GB, 

emc0007RM

158. It is surprising that your material includes Colorado and Wyoming in the sage-grouse area, but there are no meeting 

arranged in either of those states.

All Both emc0015GB

159. We suggest that BLM/agencies post alilek count and other data on which the Doherty Core/Triage analysis is based, and on 

which any derivative mapping and population modeling is based on-line for all the western states, so that this can be an open 

and transparent process where all "stakeholders" have equal access to information necessary to make informed comment.

Can we be provided with the information that Doherty et al. used to develop the mapping and analysis so that we may make 

All Both emc0026GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-57

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

informed Scoping comments?

160. We are very concerned about what appears to be increased secrecy about grouse numbers and other essential information 

like locations of leks. This is NOT necessary for protection of birds. The location of leks can be masked a bit if that is the 

concern -like to the nearest half mile, or something. But full accurate accounting, numbers, and the environmental setting 

have to be presented and mapped in an open way to aid informed public comment. This includes ongoing comments in the 

Interim on a battery of agency proposals that are underway or will be proposed as this latest BLM process is being 

conducted. Just a month after hearing Bob Budd (the Wyoming Core/Triage model facilitator) sayin Boise that there were 

over 400,000 grouse in Wyoming alone, I read an article in a Montana newspaper that had a lower number --- range-wide.

If the agencies - and this includes the states/WGA too - truly want public buy-in, and an effective outcome - then full 

transparency and honesty from the start is critical.

All Both emc0026GB

161. I would like to express my disappointment that there does not appear to be a single scoping meeting in the state of 

Colorado, even though we have major areas of Sage Grouse habitat. I am personally well acquainted with the Little Snake 

River area in northwestern Colorado and the Red desert in southwestern Wyoming and have valuable input regarding those 

areas.

All Both emc0028GB

162. What these comments attempt to convey is that nothing less than a change in agency culture is needed if sage-grouse are to 

thrive.

All Both emc0058GB, 

emc0015RM

163. Please list the Greater Sage Grouse as an endangered species. At the very least, treat the Greater Sage Grouse as if it were 

listed as endangered, because it is the Right Thing To Do. Follow available science Over commodity driven interests.

All Both emc0056GB

164. Place emphasis on the long term and short term protection the greater sage grouse over commodity driven interests. Follow 

the best available science over commodity driven interests.

All Both emc0055GB

165. Successful management of the Greater Sage-grouse will require the involvement of all federal land-management agencies 

which hold land within the range of this species. It is our understanding that the US Forest Service has joined in the effort, but 

we urge that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy be 

engaged as well.

All Both emc0068GB, 

emc0020rm

166. The scoping documentation, draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), and final environmental impact statement (EIS) 

records should make it clear that failure to apply and implement is not an option but a requirement if federal listing of sage 

grouse is to be avoided by implementation of positive recover actions.

All Both emc0066GB

167. In my career with the FWS I had many an opportunity to interact with the Service and the Bureau (the agencies). During that 

career and since my retirement I have noted many instances of technical-planning recommendations that were not being 

applied or implemented on the ground on agency-managed lands. That has caused grave concern on my part, because it 

matters not one bit for "the critter of interest" and its habitats if the technical recommendations that come from an informed 

planning process never hit the ground.

All Both emc0066GB

168. That in my view is a very serious issue, one that deserves treatment in the development of the preservation and restoration 

strategy for sage grouse. The agencies must certainly be aware that they now deal with a very sophisticated set of publics, 

that those publics are well informed of these issues, and that they will certainly take affirmative action of this process fails.

All Both emc0066GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-58 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

169. The agencies have as a matter of routine failed to apply and implement solid technical recommendations in the past as many 

a court proceeding has documented. This is a waste of tax dollars - in planning and in court. So, there have been and continue 

to be several reasons, as the agencies well know, that contribute to a legitimate cause for such concern on the part of the 

publics in this matter.

All Both emc0066GB

170. It is my view that politics and old-guard administration have been and remain obstacles to the implementation of sound 

science. Said another way, science has not informed and is not informing policy. Rather, policy has subverted and suppressed 

and is subverting and suppressing science. This travesty is not unique to any particular federal administration or to any 

particular agency. That has to change if planning processes are to be legitimate - to have actual, societal-level value. For it to 

continue otherwise perpetuates the charade, wastes human and fiscal resources, and ignores the natural resource problems 

and their causes. I suggest that this institutional issue has direct bearing on the scoping process and in the environmental 

analysis that goes into the development of the DEIS and EIS. Disclosure of the issue in scoping and as part of the subsequent

NEPA planning process in the development of the DEIS and EIS, respectively, will allow for direct treatment of the issue. Said 

another way, the two agencies should address this very-real issue up front in the planning documentation. It is as important 

if not more important than the science, because it has served to trump the science in the past and stands to do so again after 

this process is completed. That would render the process next to useless in terms of actual accomplishment toward 

protecting and restoring sage grouse and its habitats.

All Both emc0066GB

171. So, in my view, the NEPA process should address aspects of application and implementation that insure that the science will 

inform the policy, that application and implementation at all levels within each organization are informed by the science, that 

the performance of agency employees will be evaluated against application and implementation criteria at all levels of 

decision making, and that the DEIS and EIS record is clear that failure to apply and implement is not an option but a 

requirement.

All Both emc0066GB

172. I know there are legal issues in that last statement as it precedes a record of decision. However, I think that the process 

needs to squarely address those issues up front. The alternative of course is litigation, petitioning, and federal listing of the 

greater sage grouse by the USFWS. Again, I will be direct. Let’s be serious from the get go. Politics and old-guard 

administration must be addressed as obstructionist to the preservation and restoration of the greater sage grouse and its 

habitats. An open planning process and an open application and implementation of technical recommendations is necessary 

to the betterment of the species and it habitat.

All Both emc0066GB

173. I suggest that the agencies must look at all uses of and on the land. The agencies should evaluate those uses against the goals 

- attainment of preservation and restoration of sage grouse and its habitats by way of application and implementation of the 

technical recommendations that come from the planning process. If goal attainment requires changes in land use - said 

another way, if goal attainment is not possible without changes in land use - the disclosure of those requisite changes should 

be included in the NEPA documentation.

All Both emc0066GB

174. I wish you well in conducting this evaluation and that all participants are able to remain on the ethical high ground free of the 

subversion of political intervention. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

All Both emc0066GB

175. Re: Request for Extension of Public Comment Period for the Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statements 

and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements to Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures into Land 

All Both emc0067GB, 

emc0018rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-59

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Use Plans and Land Management Plans, 76 Fed. Reg. 77008 (December 9, 2011) Dear Project Managers: The Northwest 

Mining Association hereby requests a 60 to 90-day extension of the comment period on the above referenced Notice of 

Intent. The conservation measures being proposed for the greater sage-grouse will have a significant impact on our 

members. Additional time is required to fully identify the issues that should be considered as the BLM and the U.S. Forest 

Service prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS) to 

incorporate conservation measures into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans

176. We request an extension to the public comment period for two reasons. First, greater sage-grouse habitat maps are still 

being developed by the federal land management and state wildlife agencies. Until those maps are completed, it is impossible 

for our members to fully analyze the potential impact of the proposed conservation measures.

All Both emc0067GB, 

emc0018rm

177. Second, subsequent to the publication of the Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS’s, the BLM issued several greater 

sage-grouse management documents relevant to the scoping process, including the National Technical Team report released 

on December 21, 2011 that includes proposed sage-grouse conservation measures. Then, on December 27, 2011, the BLM 

issued two instruction memoranda (IM No. 2012-043 and IM No. 2012-044) addressing land use planning and management 

for greater sage-grouse. Neither the National Technical Team’s report, nor the two instruction memoranda were available

for public review at the time the Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register. Not to mention the documents, 

materials, data, studies and other materials cited in the report and memoranda. As a result, the public was not afforded 

adequate time to investigate and consider the effects of that material on the scoping process and to prepare meaningful 

comments accordingly.

All Both emc0067GB, 

emc0018rm

178. It is critical to NWMA members that they have adequate time to review and develop meaningful comments for this scoping 

process. Therefore, we respectfully request the comment period be extended for an additional 60 to 90 days. We would 

appreciate BLM’s prompt action on this request given its critical nature to our members’ business operations.

All Both emc0067GB, 

emc0018rm

179. We hope this planning process leads the BLM and USFS to accelerate its ongoing transition away from haphazard 

management of livestock grazing, energy development, fire management, OHVs, mining, roads, weeds, water development, 

fences, non-native seeding, etc.

All Both emc0078GB

180. The proposed action involves incorporating conservation measures for greater sage grouse and their habitat into BLM RMPs 

and USFS LRMPs. Sage grouse are warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act, mostly because regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to prevent habitat degradation. Since most of that habitat is managed/regulated by the federal 

agencies, this becomes a very important planning endeavor, and this effort will fail unless it leads to significant changes in the 

management practices of federal agencies.

All Both emc0078GB

181. We support the use of ePlanning to improve transparency in the NEPA process, reduce paper use, and improve 

record-keeping throughout the preparation of environmental documents. We urge the agencies to make the website as 

complete as possible with links to all key science resources and related planning documents and policy documents, etc.

All Both emc0078GB

182. I have read the frequently asked questions sections of the sage grouse website. I am still unclear about the purpose and need 

on this particular EIS.

All Both emc0051GB

183. Is the purpose and need only to incorporate sage grouse language / priorities into RMP’s that may be so old as to not address All Both emc0051GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-60 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

this species at all, or minimally?

184. Is the purpose and need only to evaluate the effects to sage grouse conservation of ongoing program practices done under 

existing RMP’s? And if so, what conservation measures are being used to evaluate the practices against?

All Both emc0051GB

185. Is the purpose and need only to recommend new conservation practices to be incorporated into existing RMP’s and/or 

recommend revision of ongoing practices done under existing RMP’s that might be contrary or less than ideal for sage grouse 

conservation?

All Both emc0051GB

186. Please take a step in the right direction for the BLM and reject the un-nessary listing of the Sage Grouse All Both emc0286GB

187. I believe that the process would better benefit by making it more of a "joint" effort. By this, I mean that I believe the 

information that the USU Extension has gained in their efforts over the past couple ofyears seems to be working effectively 

and that the BLM would better benefit by working along with their findings in a case by case basis to continue the studies and 

management of the Sage Grouse population rather than to take it over and treat the process as a "whole", seeing as different 

areas will be affected in different ways. I believe that deep consideration should be given to what has already been learned and 

accomplished and that the process that was originally began by the USU Extension needs to be given a chance to succeed.

All Both emc0325GB

188. While I, personally, believe in the cause and its efforts, I also believe that each area needs to be dealt with in the manner that 

will most greatly benefit them directly. What is best for one area is not necessarily the best for another. One area could 

directly be affected recreationally while another could be affected more on the farmland/natural resource and habitat end of 

things. Therefore, it would be my suggestion that each case needs to be dealt with individually in order to directly determine 

the best results.

All Both emc0325GB

189. Let's not prevent recreation, mining, live stock grazing, oil production, gas recovery, and the massive loss of jobs! All Both emc0035GB

190. The EIS process should also identify any significant "data gaps" that could, consequently, provide impetus for the initiation of 

additional field research projects that would address those data needs.

All Both emc0041GB

191. In summary, we need to have as much biological information as possible about the demographics of the various sage grouse 

populations located in the various parts of their geographic range, and to know how those demographics relateto the kinds 

of habitat alterations and human impacts that have taken place and that may potentially take place in the future. Until these 

kinds of data are nailed down accurately, it will be difficult to determine the kinds of things that land managers can do to most 

effectively promote the welfare of this species. The aim should be to determine what human activities can be modified, 

managed differently, or curtailed to best promote the long term success of sage grouse, and probably more importantly, to 

promote the healthy ecology of sagebrush ecosystems, in general, across the West. As you undoubtedly know, whatever we 

do to improve the conditions for sage grouse, will likely benefit literally dozens, perhaps even hundreds of species that 

depend on sage‐steppe landscapes.

All Both emc0041GB

192. I would not spend a great deal of time considering predator control, urban sprawl, communication towers, invasive plants, 

oil and gas development, roads, pipe line routes, or livestock grazing in your sage grouse conservation plan. These are mostly 

distractions. Stay focused on habitat management and don’t get sidetracked by various agendas.

All Both emc0043GB

193. As all of us know, the issues associated with greater sage-grouse conservation are complex in their details and expansive in All Both emc0049GB, 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-61

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

their impacts. Western states, and stakeholders in those states, have spent many years working to develop and implement 

workable conservation plans.

emc0019rm

194. We hope the agencies will provide sufficient time to make sure that hard-won knowledge and progress on the ground can 

be integrated into the EIS and SEIS processes. Critical to that effort is good information flow. Unfortunately, a good deal of 

important data was released by BLM well after the comment clock started. On December 27, 2011, the BLM issued two 

instruction memoranda -- IM No. 2012-043 and IM No. 2012-044 -- addressing land use planning and management for 

greater sage-grouse. Then, on December 31, 2011, the BLM issued several more greater sage-grouse management 

documents, including the National Technical Team Report. These BLM documents reference a variety of other documents, 

data, studies and other materials relating to greater sage-grouse and their habitat

All Both emc0049GB, 

emc0019rm

195. An even more fundamental issue: greater sage-grouse habitat maps are still being developed by the federal land management 

and state wildlife agencies. It is hard for stakeholders to provide meaningful input to the regulatory process without that key 

set of data. Assuming the maps will be forthcoming very soon, we believe a 90-day extension of the public comment period 

is appropriate to give the public, stakeholders and states sufficient time to digest these documents, maps etc, and formulate 

meaningful input.

All Both emc0049GB, 

emc0019rm

196. This issue has very real implications for Roundtable members, many of which are involved in energy and natural resource 

development activities on the vast swathes of lands in the West

All Both emc0049GB, 

emc0019rm

197. This e-mail is to let you know of our concern for the Greater Sage Grouse. Even though it is not listed on the endangered 

species list, it should be and it should be treated as if it was. This is critical and it is the right thing to do. We ask you to follow 

the best available science OVER COMMODITY DRIVEN INTERESTS

All Both emc0081GB

198. While I understand that you are under great pressure from Western Watershed and other environmental entities, it seems 

common sense needs to prevail.

All Both emc0082GB

199. PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES ISSUE: The proposed Conservation Measures statement “Priority sage‐grouse 

habitats ...areas have been, or will be identified by state fish and wildlife agencies in coordination with respective BLM

offices” allows an unprecedented situation of having the State dictate habitat management on federally managed lands.

Priority habitat speaks of the land – not the animal. The federal land management agencies are responsible for the habitat-the 

land, with the state being responsible for the actual animal with the exception of where ESA listed species occurred. This 

statement, as written, should not be incorporated into the LUPs. It is an assertion of states rights on federal lands. I have

been in these “coordination” meetings; which have been nothing more than finger-pointing sessions. Aside from the 

precedent this sets in writing, there are other concerns. The states ultimately don’t have the legal responsibility for the 

habitat; will incur no cost from having to fund the conservation measures on the land, will incur no cost from the future 

lawsuits, and are more subject to provincial politics than even the BLM. Under this language the BLM will have little control

over priorities, but all of the risk. The LUP should adopt language that says BLM state level biologists, as the habitat managers, 

will coordinate high priority areas across District and State lines with input from Districts and the States.

All Both emc0083GB

200. ISSUE: The proposed Conservation Measures fail to address the topic of patch size in relation to sage-grouse habitat. Habitat 

patch size can be critical for the survival of species that are affected by this phenomenon. OHV trails, two-track roads, 

ROW’s and other structures that chop contiguous vegetation types that make up a habitat into small pieces must be 

All Both emc0083GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-62 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

evaluated with respect to the minimum size of a habitat needed by sage grouse to complete their life cycle. Page 9, item 3 of

the proposed Conservation Measures hints at patch size, but doesn’t really discuss the concept. Any amendment to LUP’s 

should discuss this conservation biology topic - either dismiss it as an effect, or discuss it. If effects of patch size aren’t known, 

that should be stated and conservative recommendations made until the science catches up.

201. The Land-Use Planning Process Several of the RMPS and LMPs that are subject to the NOI are currently undergoing revision 

or amendment. EISs are being prepared in connection with those actions to evaluate the potential impacts of alternative 

resource management prescriptions. The NOI does not clearly state how the Greater sage-grouse EISs will be coordinated 

with these ongoing land-use planning efforts. It is important that the BLM and FS avoid duplication of efforts, and streamline 

the overall NEPA process. For example, where EISs have been or are being prepared for a particular land use plan 

amendment or revision, the Greater sage-grouse EISs should defer to those ongoing efforts and avoid "reinventing the 

wheel" and duplicating the extensive analyses and public engagement processes that have already been undertaken.

All Both emc0084GB, 

emc0026rm

202. The NOI acknowledges that any conservation measures will recognize valid existing rights (VER). Properly defining and 

protecting valid existing rights should be a central component of the BLM and FS's planning efforts.

All Both emc0084GB, 

emc0026rm

203. The NOI suggests that the BLM and FS are striving for greater national consistency in the types of sage-grouse conservation 

measures that are implemented on federal lands. While consistent guidelines may provide some value, those guidelines 

should provide sufficient flexibility to allow for consideration of local conditions during implementation. For example, a 

one-size-fits-all approach to potential buffer zones would not be appropriate, and local land-use managers must have some 

flexibility to consider whether such measures are necessary or appropriate during the review of specific projects.

All Both emc0084GB, 

emc0026rm

204. Issues Associated with BLM's National Sage-Grouse land Use Planning Strategy On 27 December 2011, the BLM issued 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044, which provides direction to BLM for considering the sage-grouse conservation 

measures identified in the Sage-grouse National Technical Team's Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures, dated 21 December 2011 (The Sage-grouse Report). The IM directs that the measures set forth in the 

Sage-grouse Report be considered, during the land-use planning process. The IM acknowledges that some measures set forth 

in the Sage-grouse Report may not be consistent with applicable law, and directs the BLM to consider legal restraints. The 

IM also acknowledges that the measures set forth in the Report may require adjustment to address local conditions. The 

Sage-grouse Report itself (p. 5) acknowledges that the measures identified therein are not an end point and should be 

considered as only a starting point to be considered in BLM's land-use planning process. Nevertheless, there are a number 

of flaws in the measures suggested by the Sage-grouse Report, which BLM should carefully evaluate in developing a balanced 

and effective approach for conserving sage-grouse habitat. In short, many of the potential measures set forth in the Report 

do not provide a viable or defensible method for protecting sage-grouse habitat, and would have dramatic adverse 

consequences on other multiple-use activities on public lands. Overwhelmingly, the conservation measures identified in the 

Sage-grouse Report focus on limiting or restricting the use of federal public lands. Instead, the BLM's conservation measures 

should focus on active management of habitats in a manner that will allow for other land uses.

All Both emc0084GB, 

emc0026rm

205. Given the scale and scope of this undertaking, the scoping comment period is inadequate to fully review and consider the 

various supporting reports, maps, and documents. Indeed, the detailed habitat maps for Nevada are not yet complete! It is 

thus appropriate for BLM to provide a 120-day comment period. Please extend the comment period accordingly.

All Both emc0084GB, 

emc0026rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-63

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

206. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) respectfully requests an extension of time to file comments in the 

proceeding referenced in the subject line of this letter due to the current unavailability of data that is essential to completing 

our filing and improving the record.

All Both emc0086GB, 

emc0030rm

207. AWEA therefore requests that the comment deadline for this proceeding be extended for 60 days (until April 7, 2012) or, 

in the alternative, 14 days from when the necessary data from all of the states is publicly released by BLM. This additional 

time will allow AWEA, as well as other stakeholders involved in this matter, to submit a more complete filing that will 

improve the record in this proceeding. Considering the long-term nature of the sage-grouse protection initiative, this 

extension would not significantly delay this proceeding.

All Both emc0086GB, 

emc0030rm

208. The February 6, 2012, court order is posted on the Advocates for the West web page, the only place I could easily locate it. 

In short, the BLM lost. It is worth reading in conjunction with the sage-grouse RMP EIS project because it seems that, at some 

point, either the RMPs or more detailed activity plans could be subjected to FWS PECE criteria. The reason for sending this 

is that, even with an adequate regulatory framework, the follow through performance is what really counts. The court order 

may help provide some insights into how to better accomplish on-the-ground what RMPs on paper are trying to achieve.

All Both emc0097GB, 

emc0038RM

209. The paragraphs below are taken from a November 15, 2011, Federal Register notice regarding Proposed Information 

Collection; Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE). I have underlined passages 

that could be interpreted as applying to RMP revisions through the RMP EIS effort. The "other entities" in the first paragraph 

doesn't seem to exclude federal agencies. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) specifies 

the process by which we can list species as threatened or endangered. When we consider whether or not to list a species, 

the ESA requires us to take into account the efforts being made by any State or any political subdivision of a State to protect 

such species. We also take into account the efforts being made by other entities. States or other entities often formalize 

conservation efforts in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, or similar documents. The 

conservation efforts recommended or called for in such documents could prevent some species [[Page 70749]] from 

becoming so imperiled that they meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. The Policy for 

Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100) encourages the development of 

conservation agreements/plans and provides certainty about the standard that an individual conservation effort must meet 

for us to consider whether it contributes to forming a basis for making a decision about the listing of a species. PECE applies 

to ``formalized conservation efforts'' that have not been implemented or have been implemented but have not yet 

demonstrated if they are effective at the time of a listing decision. Under PECE, formalized conservation efforts are defined 

as conservation efforts (specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise 

improve the status of a species) identified in a conservation agreement, conservation plan, management plan, or similar 

document. The development of such agreements/plans is voluntary. There is no requirement that the individual conservation 

efforts included in such documents be designed to meet the standard in PECE.

All Both emc0097GB, 

emc0038RM

210. TWS believes the preliminary issues list developed by BLM and FS is incomplete. The list should also incorporate several

factors which are relevant to "greater sage-grouse habitat management." Some of the additional factors that The Wildlife 

Society recommends including are: - Wild horses and burros management - Conifer encroachment and management -

Habitat restoration and subsequent long-term monitoring - Water management and West Nile virus abatement - Placement 

All Both emc0099GB, 

emc0037RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-64 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of fences, cell towers, and other related tall structures - Wildfire management - Prescribed burning - Sagebrush management 

programs (mechanical and chemical) These major conservation issues and concerns have been synthesized in Studies in 

Avian Biology, Volume 38 (Knick and Connelly 2011).

211. 22nd bullet: The Federal Register notice states that "The most current approved BLM and FS corporate spatial data will be 

supported by current metadata and will be used to ascertain greater sage-grouse habitat extent and quality. Data will be 

consistent with the principles of the Information Quality Act of 2000." How will data maintained by the state wildlife 

management agencies be incorporated into this process? In some cases, state wildlife management agencies may have better 

and/or conflicting data. Much of the knowledge and expertise on greater sagegrouse resides in state agencies and 

universities, not with the BLM or FS. We recommend that these sources be fully consulted prior completing greater 

sage-grouse habitat maps.

All Both emc0099GB, 

emc0037RM

212. 23rd bullet: The Federal Register notice states that "State Game and Fish agencies' greater sage-grouse data and expertise 

will be utilized to the fullest extent practicable in making management determinations on Federal lands." This is an ambiguous 

statement. Who or what decides what is "practicable"? Presently it does not appear that BLM/FS is using all of the expertise 

available to it; we encourage the agencies to work more closely with the state agencies.

All Both emc0099GB, 

emc0037RM

213. The BLM has a ‘Multiple-Use Mandate’. Clearly, many of the planning criteria identified could have either positive or negative 

consequences for sage-grouse populations. The document does not explicitly acknowledge the fact that many of the criteria 

and the mandates may actually be in conflict with sage-grouse management. A number of resource needs and activities that 

BLM is responsible for managing under the multiple-use doctrine may not compatible with sage-grouse conservation and 

thus should not all take place at the same time or within the same locations or landscapes. This should be mentioned; such 

conflict in management will need to be addressed.

All Both emc0099GB, 

emc0037RM

214. Management of sage-grouse populations, as indicated in the discussion of the planning criteria, requires intimate knowledge 

of what is and what is not sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, this resource data must be spatially depicted across the 

landscape. The Conservation Assessment provides great insights as to what those habitats should look like. However, when 

we take a given state or a given population, and look at a map, in most cases, we do not have the ability to identify where 

those resources occur on the landscape. TWS recommends BLM and FS consult with state wildlife management agencies to 

incorporate state level research mapping efforts such as the remotely-sensed sagebrush mapping effort in Wyoming that has 

developed the seasonal sage-grouse habitat mapping project.

All Both emc0099GB, 

emc0037RM

215. The list of plans to be affected: - The Inyo, Klamath, Modoc, and Lassen National Forests should be included as additional 

California sites. - The Salmon-Challis National Forest should be included as an additional Idaho site. - The Targhee and 

Caribou National Forests in Idaho have been combined- both Forests have sage-rouse habitat. - The Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest should be included as an additional Montana site.

All Both emc0099GB, 

emc0037RM

216. We recognize that this is a national plan, but to work and truly make a difference for the sage-grouse species and the 

communities affected, the FS/BLM’s Supplemental EIS to Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation measures into 

Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans must be locally adapted and dynamic. The document must foster learning 

through the most current research and monitoring efforts. As new knowledge becomes available the plans must be flexible 

enough to incorporate this knowledge into management.

All Both emc0099GB, 

emc0037RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-65

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

217. Is misplaced blame now an aspect of the scientific method? Recurrently, misplaced blame seems to guide public policy. The 

progression of sage grouse studies and solutions is troubling because previous central planning suggests the correct actions 

will not be taken by the bureaucracy. The politically-correct scientists already have destroyed logging in communities 

across America. Who is next? Can we expect the bureaucracy to protect sage grouse any differently than the spotted owl? 

With the nation 16 trillion dollars in debt, will their true impact be to eliminate jobs and ruin communities while protecting 

the bureaucracy? President Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex. Perhaps now we should consider a 

bureau-scientific complex centralizing science and regulating our rights, opportunities, and liberties.

All Both emc0087GB

218. It is apparent that centralized policy overrides science when considering the analyses and conclusions of the sage grouse 

studies. Whether by intent or coincidence, for the uninitiated but scientifically and technically accomplished reader, the 

submitted May 15, 2011 USFWS Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form (USFWS 2011, subsequently 

noted as Form) is unclear and poorly presented. The 139-page submittal is without page numbers, table of contents or index. 

Headings are repetitive except where they simply reference letters of the alphabet with no clear subject. That unprofessional 

and unclear construct makes referencing, cross-referencing and checking tedious beyond the point of deceptive. Given the 

scale and import of the matter, this is troubling since the presentation obscures both data and analyses, hindering substantive 

evaluation of the conclusions and recommendations. As a taxpayer, it is appalling that this low quality apparently is standard 

and acceptable practice by the bureaucracy.

All Both emc0087GB

219. The NOI states that the BLM and FS will use a collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach and will coordinate and 

communicate with state, local, and tribal governments. Involvement of all stakeholders will be critical to the success of the 

BLM’s and FS’s efforts; however, the NOI appears to only provide stakeholders the typical NEPA opportunities for public 

participation (i.e., submitting comments during scoping and on the draft EIS). Whatever the forthcoming decision is, it will 

likely have significant social and economic repercussions well beyond the BLM and its public land policies. To simply allow for 

comments may meet the NEPA requirements; however, it provides little opportunity for a collaborative process and is likely 

to result in more challenges to future agency decisions.

All Both emc0090GB

220. The BLM’s national planning strategy (IM WO-2012-044; Attachment 2) identifies several planning level teams that have 

varying roles, responsibilities, and meeting frequencies. Neither the IM nor the planning strategy identify how the public can 

participate in these meetings or even how the public will be informed of meeting logistics. Since these groups will evaluate 

the existing science, provide direction for the NEPA analysis, and develop regulatory mechanisms to include in land-use 

plans, stakeholders should be allowed to participate through a collaborative process. Idaho Power asks that the BLM and FS 

implement a process that allows right-of-way (ROW) holders, environmental groups, local sage-grouse working groups, and 

other stakeholders an opportunity to help develop the plan amendments.

All Both emc0090GB

221. IM WO-2012-044 states that the conservation measures identified by the National Technical Team (NTT) “... must be 

considered and analyzed as appropriate, through the land use planning process ...” One of the sub-objectives identified by 

the NTT is to manage priority sage-grouse habitats so discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less the three percent of 

the total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership. As the BLM considers and analyzes alternatives, it should provide the 

scientific literature that supports the three percent threshold and should consider other, less restrictive thresholds. The 

BLM may also be unintentionally precluding issuance of ROWs on BLM-managed lands by extending the three percent 

All Both emc0090GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-66 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

threshold to all priority habitats, regardless of ownership. If adjacent priority habitat is impacted by a private landowner or 

others (e.g., development as part of a conditional use permit) then the threshold may be reached for that area. It is also not 

clear under what regulatory authority the BLM can identify priority and general habitats on lands they do not manage. BLM 

needs to include an alternative that is only applied to BLM-managed lands.

222. CORVA supports the concept of using sound scientific analysis to determine necessary changes to habitat In order to 

promote the health and well-being of the greater sage-grouse. The proposal as outlined in the NOI, which describes 

conservation measures specifically designed to improve habitat is admirable, and can be a more effective and less intrusive 

method to ensure survival of the greater sage-grouse. Furthermore, working in a consistent manner between Forest Service 

and BLM is a concept we endorse.Small changes now can lead to great results in the future. CORVA objects, however, to any 

attempts to classify sub-groups of greater sage grouse in order to needlessly apply stricter criteria in regards to conservation 

measures in some areas rather than others. This tends to be a political manipulation that uses the courts to eliminate usage 

and access of public lands.

All Both emc0095GB

223. ANG requests that the public scoping period be extended by 60 days for the following reasons. It is our understanding that 

the EIS process will determine levels of priority sage grouse habitat based upon habitat density maps, lek maps, sagebrush 

maps, and other maps being prepared by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). According to NDOW, these maps 

are still in progress and unavailable to interested parties until they are complete. The maps available at the public scoping 

meetings were of a scale that was difficult to identify project-level locations and were stated to be outdated and likely to 

change significantly in the NDOW product. At the final scoping meeting on January 30th in Reno Nevada, the audience was 

notified that not all maps are yet up on the BLM website. When maps are not available for the public to identify if they have 

the potential to be impacted by this EIS, it is difficult to identify if they are a stakeholder and/or determine their level of 

interest or involvement in the EIS process. Had the maps been available prior to the scoping period, the BLM may have found 

that more parties were involved in the scoping process. Another justification for extension of the scoping period is the 

release of the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team conservation measures document (A Report on National Greater 

Sage- Grouse Conservation Measures, December 21, 2011) (Report) after the initiation of the scoping period. The Federal 

Register Notice of Intent for this EIS process states that conservation Page 2 of 4 measures will be analyzed in the 

Programmatic EIS documents for inclusion in the applicable RMPs. Further, the scoping meetings referenced this document 

as the planning direction of the BLM and thus it is assumed that it is a critical component to review at the scoping stage. In 

order to make detailed and specific comments per BLM instruction, it is necessary to receive more information regarding the 

specific project description. The public notices did not contain an adequate project description. Please prepare and make 

available a detailed project description consistent with other NEPA actions at the same time that an extension to the public 

scoping period is granted. The description of the proposed action is the first critical component for conducting an analysis 

consistent with NEPA and its implementing regulations. A flawed or incomplete description of the proposed action can delay 

the NEPA process. Scoping is a critical component of the NEPA process where the primary issues are identified for inclusion 

in the Draft EIS analysis. An extension of this process could preserve the entire expedited EIS timeline by making a proper 

identification of what is to be analyzed in the Draft EIS.

All Both emc0103GB

224. No actions should be more restrictive than that required from a biological assessment and subsequent biological opinion All Both emc0103GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-67

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

should sage-grouse become listed. For example, withdrawal of mineral activities should not be a default stipulation, or 

“conservation measure”, taken without a full analysis warranting the decision.

225. The relevance of data needs to be noted and described. In many cases during the scoping meetings, the BLM maps noted the 

use of old data. A clear delineation of the usefulness of specific aged data should be established and no decision should be 

made using data that is outdated or otherwise inadequate.

All Both emc0103GB

226. Any numerical disturbance restriction needs to be backed by peer-reviewed scientific study results. For example, in this case 

described in Comment #8, how was a limit of disturbance to 2.5% of the habitat area determined as appropriate? In addition, 

how would “total habitat” be applied, statewide - only within each priority habitat blocks? Alternatives need to be specific to

management/habitat areas.

All Both emc0103GB

227. Any numerical disturbance restriction needs to be backed by peer-reviewed scientific study results. For example, in this case 

described in Comment #8, how was a limit of disturbance to 2.5% of the habitat area determined as appropriate? In addition, 

how would “total habitat” be applied, statewide - only within each priority habitat blocks? Alternatives need to be specific to

management/habitat areas.

All Both emc0103GB

228. NEPA directs the BLM to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommend courses of action in any 

proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (H-1790-1 – National 

Environmental Policy Act Handbook, Section 6.6.1, p.49). The BLM must analyze a reasonable number of alternatives, 

including the no action alternative, to cover the full spectrum of alternatives. These EIS documents need to fully analyze the 

No Action Alternative specific to each RMP (continue existing management policies) which would be assumed to lead to the 

USFWS listing of the species. The No Action alternative must be analyzed to the same level of detail as other alternatives 

with a full impact assessment of how the species being listed will compare against other alternatives for each resource 

analyzed.

All Both emc0103GB

229. Following the development of a clear proposed action, the development of alternatives is the most critical aspect of the EIS 

process. A full range of alternatives must be developed early in the EIS process with all stakeholders, not just cooperating 

agencies. The BLM needs to develop a strategy to involve all stakeholders in this process following this initial scoping period 

to help insure that the EIS deadlines can be met. The BLM Resource Advisory Councils are an example of an existing 

resource that could be used for this process as they represent the public land users and each member has been appointed 

by the Secretary of the Interior.

All Both emc0103GB

230. Please include an analysis of the additional resources and staffing BLM field offices will need to implement the various 

alternatives analyzed in the EIS, and how BLM will ensure existing programs do not suffer. ANG is concerned that BLM staff 

is being allocated to too many areas, not allowing processing of applications in an efficient and timely manner.

All Both emc0103GB

231. Any alternative that utilizes conservation methodologies, including use restrictions and exclusions, based on a prioritization 

of habitat should exclude or limit the modification of such designations without further analysis.

All Both emc0103GB

232. Since the EIS will only be addressing Sage Grouse habitat, the BLM needs to cross check that there are no conflicts between 

proposed conservation measures and other resource management within each district RMP. This needs to be analyzed in the 

EIS.

All Both emc0103GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-68 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

233. Attempted to fax comments to 775-861-6747, the number on the web site, which is a non working number. called office and 

they gave 775-861-6602. You need to correct your site, and provide additional time for those that wished to provide 

comments but couldn't, because of the incorrect information.

All Both emc0105GB

234. Finally our county will aggressively resist any attempt to list sage grouse and expect that conservation measures will be forth 

coming in order to constructively aide in the management of sage grouse habitat processes.

All Both emc0106GB

235. The NvMA is very concerned that the two BlM Instructional Memoranda released in December 2011 were issued without 

prior public or NEPA review. These documents will potentially have significant consequences on public lands use and on the 

mining industry in particular. The land use policy and implementation procedures contained in the Memoranda should have 

been issued after the NEPA process to include adequate consideration of their impacts, particularly socioeconomics. 

Furthermore, the actions by the agency were inconsistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and bypassed the opportunity 

for the public to participate in the rulemaking process and to develop balanced and measured land management 

requirements.

All Both emc0310GB

236. It is unclear of the role of the findings and report of the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team titled, "A Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures", December 21, 2011 in the NEPA process. The EIS should address the report 

and detail its role in the development of the BlM's Instructional Memoranda as well as the overall NEPA process and 

RMP/lRMP modifications for sage grouse. The scientific basis for the report and management policies should be provided and 

made publicly available including methodologies used and scientific literature considered. Many of the potential conservation 

measures contained in the report do not provide viable, defensible or even legal means of protecting sage grouse habitat and 

will have dramatic adverse effects on mUltiple use activities on public lands. The conservation measures must focus on 

management, which will continue to allow existing land uses along with new uses. Furthermore, the development of the 

report is inconsistent with the provisions of the Federal AdviSOry Committee Act (FACA) and places into question its role 

in policy making and this EIS process.

All Both emc0310GB

237. The purpose and need statement of the EIS must specifically incorporate multiple use and sustainable yield principles as 

mandated by federal law and case law.

All Both emc0310GB

238. The EIS alternatives should not default to overly broad and unnecessary prohibitions on various public land use activities. The 

EIS should focus on narrowly tailored management strategies that protect multiple use values for all users, with clearly 

defined goals that are commensurate with the sub-regions habitat and bird population trends.

All Both emc0310GB

239. The EIS alternatives should not default to overly broad and unnecessary prohibitions on various public land use activities. The 

EIS should focus on narrowly tailored management strategies that protect multiple use values for all users, with clearly 

defined goals that are commensurate with the sub-regions habitat and bird population trends.

All Both emc0310GB

240. The EIS must address how BLM and the USFS will coordinate with state wildlife agencies to ensure that habitat areas have 

been appropriately designated during and following the EIS process.

All Both emc0310GB

241. The EIS alternatives must allow project proponents subject to conservation measures to confirm habitat designations based 

upon site-specific information. Where site-specific data indicates habitat is not present, even if designated on agency maps, 

adjustments to the RMPs and LRMPs should be allowed without formal land plan amendments.

All Both emc0310GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-69

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

242. The EIS encompasses a number of western states and federal agencies that have taken different approaches to the 

identification of habitat and its associated mapping. The EIS must address differences in those approaches and outline a 

process for resolving those differences.

All Both emc0310GB

243. The EIS and all of the alternatives must exclude the use of validity exams within proposed withdrawal areas. This was 

contemplated in the "Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures". Such exams are expensive, time 

consuming and inappropriate for use in this context.

All Both emc0310GB

244. The EIS must address the feasibility of a state or regional habitat mitigation bank. Such a program could provide benefits Of. 

centralized funding and would reduce the possibility of piecemeal mitigation. Such a program must affordable, accessible and 

simple to contribute to and identify and perform needed mItIgatIon In cntlcal areas.

All Both emc0310GB

245. Some NvMA members operate farming, ranching and grazing operations in conjunction with mining activities. The EIS must 

address all of the issues identified in the EIS preliminary issues statement as well as other concerns such as water use and 

development, wild horses and burros, hunting and how grazing and certain land use activities (including grazing, farming, 

some disturbances, land reclamation, etc. may help in species protection. The assumption that all grazing, disturbances and 

man-induced impacts are harmful to habitat and the species is unfounded.

All Both emc0310GB

246. The EIS must define, expand upon and determine the impacts of any actions contained in the BLM document "A Report on 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" that are to be included in any alternative as a management measure. 

This includes, but is not limited to, withdrawals from mineral entry, the "maximum 3% disturbance area, fencing restrictions 

and setbacks, acquisitions of rights of way, delays in obtaining use permits for projects, dissolution or removal of existing 

rights of -ways and the removal or burying of existing or proposed pipelines, fences, ditches, utility lines or other 

infrastructure on public lands.

All Both emc0310GB

247. The EIS and the alternatives should address any and all impacts associated with retroactivity of land use and management 

requirements that are proposed to be put into place in the RMPs and LMRPs. As an example, the EI5 should address how 

BLM and the U5F5 plans to honor the valid existing rights companies hold in what is assumed will be designated Priority 

Habitat Areas.

All Both emc0310GB

248. In the EIS alternatives, no actions must be more restrictive than that required from a biological assessment and subsequent 

biological opinion. For example, withdrawal of mineral activities should not be a default stipulation, or "conservation 

measure", or taken without a full analysis warranting the decision.

All Both emc0310GB

249. A matrix should be developed identifying the issues associated with various typical components of e~ch type of proposed 

action and delineate a full range of alternatives and mitigation measures in different levels of habitat, with a focus on the most 

significant threats to sage grouse habitat as identified by U5FWS

All Both emc0310GB

250. The EIS must recognize all sage grouse and sage grouse habitat conservation measures currently in practice in the sub-region, 

and evaluate their effectiveness. This is necessary to insure that any proposed new public land use restrictions are tailored 

to address issues that have the greatest recognized negative impact to sage grouse habitat, and not unduly focus simply on 

those public land users most easily regulated

All Both emc0310GB

251. Key to the development of alternatives and mitigation measures is the identification of various types of habitat areas and All Both emc0310GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-70 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

their condition. It is recognized that there are data gaps in current habitat maps by NDOW and BLM. The EIS should 

specifically identify where more data needs to be collected

252. During the scoping meetings outdated data was, at times, referenced. A clear delineation of the usefulness and applicability 

of aged data should be established, and no decisions or alternatives should be made using data that is outdated or otherwise 

inadequate.

All Both emc0310GB

253. Proposed conservation measures need to be detailed enough to analyze the enhancement of habitat quality and quantity. 

These types of conservation programs can then be developed and analyzed as alternatives.

All Both emc0310GB

254. The EIS must fully analyze the No Action Alternative, which it is assumed, will lead the USFWS to a listing of the species. It 

is critical the No Action Alternative be fully analyzed, to the same level of detail as other alternatives, with a full impact 

assessment of how species listing compares against other alternatives including, but not limited to, impacts to land users and 

the socio-economic concerns. It must be clearly defined in the EIS how the sub-region's current regulatory measures are 

performing by analyzing public land habitat status as well as sage grouse population statistics/trends.

All Both emc0310GB

255. The EIS must identify and prioritize the threats to the greater sage grouse. The EIS must clarify the magnitude of the impact 

each threat has on habitat. For example, if wildfires, epidemics and hard rock mining are all threats, what are their relative 

impacts (Le. fire accounts for 90%, epidemics 8%, etc.) In calculating threat levels relative to each other, each threat can then 

be managed more efficiently and effectively and resources better allocated in the protection effort. Management of lands for 

the protection of sage grouse must be proportionately managed according to the level of each threat identified by USFWS 

in their consideration of listing the species. Accordingly, the Alternatives must evaluate the threat, the management 

alternatives and the socio-economic and other impacts that are likely to occur.

All Both emc0310GB

256. The EIS will only be addressing sage grouse habitat. How will the BlM and USFS crosscheck to ensure there are no conflicts 

between proposed conservation measures and other resource management activities within the RMP or lRMP? This must be 

addressed in the EIS.

All Both emc0310GB

257. The EIS must fully define the term "Essential/Irreplaceable Habitat" for the purposes of the alternatives analysis, as well as 

clearly quantify both short and long-term goals for this habitat. The goals must be further broken down by public and private 

land in a cumulative effects analysis, so the public is clear on how the relative burden of public land use restrictions will be 

applied.

All Both emc0310GB

258. It is inappropriate to make land use decisions that include impacts such as project delays, denials of leases, reductions in 

grazing levels, permit denials or other actions until RMP and lRMP modifications are analyzed through the NEPA process.

All Both emc0310GB

259. The EIS and alternatives must clarify and justify provisions contained in "A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures" regarding the 3% disturbance threshold, regardless of ownership in areas where such thresholds 

have already been exceeded and further anthropogenic disturbances are to be prohibited. The analysis must include the 

socioeconomic impacts of such a prohibition

All Both emc0310GB

260. The EIS and alternatives must identify how BLM and the USFS will consistently review and modify RMPs and LRMPs across 

agency jurisdictional areas (Le. Districts), and apply and implement land use restrictions (if any) within those various areas.

All Both emc0310GB

261. The EIS must fully analyze each individual proposed conservation measure and not consolidate all conservation measures in All Both emc0310GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-71

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

one alternative. An "all or nothing" alternative is not consistent with the NEPA process, will not serve as a useable or realistic 

management tool or achieve a balance between socioeconomic and conservation goals and objectives.

262. The EIS must fully analyze each individual proposed conservation measure and not consolidate all conservation measures in 

one alternative. An "all or nothing" alternative is not consistent with the NEPA process, will not serve as a useable or realistic 

management tool or achieve a balance between socioeconomic and conservation goals and objectives.

All Both emc0310GB

263. Several of the RMPs and LRMPs subject to modification under the subject EIS are undergoing review and modification under 

other agency NEPA actions. The EIS should clarify how the sage grouse EIS will be coordinated with these ongoing 

landplaning efforts. It is critical that the agencies ensure a streamlined NEPA process for all actions

All Both emc0310GB

264. Through thoughtful, reasoned and balanced land management actions sage grouse and its habitat can be maintained and 

improved while at the same time preserving the -multiple use concept, a vibrant economy and enjoyment of public lands by 

all citizens and visitors.,

All Both emc0310GB

265. I strongly suggest that each management area or county is looked at individually and a plan according to its specific needs not 

a state wide or nation wide plan which as we know never work, micro management in this case will be the way to go.

All Both emc0389GB

266. We feel it is premature to proceed beyond the public scoping phase of the Land Use Planning (LUP) process before the 

Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) and Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) maps and data have been completed and made 

available to members of the public. The Breeding Bird Density maps developed by Doherty will not be used in developing the 

LUPs and are not representative of the information which will be used to formulate a decision. Moving forward with the LUP 

planning process without supplying maps and data showing the PGH and PPH distribution could result in confusion, 

inefficiency, inaccuracy, and over-cautiousness in scoping comments from the public. Many stakeholders may be unaware 

that they are at risk of being affected by the EIS, and may not participate in the public scoping process due to not knowing the 

land area being considered priority habitat. Please postpone the close of the public scoping period until at least two weeks 

after the last of the PGH and PPH maps and data have been released. We would want all known and potential impacts, 

whether energy development, water development, recreation, grazing, or wild horse and burro management, to receive the 

same level of analysis and to be responsible for the same level of mitigation through this process

All Both emc0108GB

267. Local Working Groups, and State plan At the coping meeting, within the documentation provided, ‘Greater Sage Grouse

Conservation, January 2012’ it indicates that the BLM is implementing this effort by building “...on the steps it and its 

partners have already taken.....” which includes “....local working groups...” have implemented “...by working jointly over

the last decade...”. No information is provided or available on the BLM Sage Grouse web site detailing these previous 

strategies and related implications for the Interim MPPs or the LUP strategy. If the process is to build on these efforts,

documentation needs to be provided to the affected parties, local communities, permittees, Sage grouse working groups, 

users groups, and general public. The Idaho Cattlemen in conjunction with the state and local working groups implemented 

planning and conservation processes. In discussion with BLM representatives, how this previous efforts and information is to 

be used, has not been specified. [See section on Coordination, FLPMA and ESA below]

All Both emc0112GB

268. Custer County Coordination As a member of the Natural Resource Advisory Committee for the Custer County

Commissioners, the BLM as lead agency is required by FLPMA 43 USC 1701 (a)(2) that “the national interest will be best 

realized if the public lands and their resources are .....coordinated with other federal and state planning efforts.” Section 

All Both emc0112GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-72 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1712 c-9, 43 USC refers to the ‘coordination status’ of a county which is engaging in the land use planning process and 

requires the secretary of Interior must “coordinate the land use inventory, planning and management activities....with the 

land use planning and management programs of other federal departments and agencies and ....Local Governments within 

which the lands are located” This provision gives statutory preference to those counties which are engaging in a LUP process 

preference over members of the general public, special interest and extremist groups. Section 1712 also provides the 

Secretary of Interior must “assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between federal and non-federal 

plans.” It further states that the Secretary must “provide for meaningful public involvement of state and local officials...in the 

development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands.” In view of the requirement

that the Secretary “coordinate” LUP and the requirement that involvement of local government be “meaningful”, the Custer 

County {which has Coordination Status} be involved throughout the planning and management cycle, not just at the end

when a draft plan or decision is issued.

269. Decisions should not use inflexible standards but should be based on the local sage-grouse working group plan that has been 

created for the local population of sage-grouse.

All Both emc0126GB

270. Federal agencies shall cooperate with state agencies, local government and those allowed by agency actions to monitor the 

progress of the Sage-Grouse to remove the species from endangered species listing.

All Both emc0126GB

271. (The EIS and SE1S revisions should clarify that multiple-use management concepts should be used to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire. Improve forage. Remove invasive species and provide open space.

All Both emc0396GB

272. Given the success of the local working group model to address other issues. we believe that strategies for protecting the 

greater sage grouse and its habitat are best designed and implemented in that forum. The local working groups are the ideal 

vehicle to bring together all interested stakeholders to develop community based solutions in response to unique conditions

within the context of the regional effort. Ecosystems occupied by greater sage-grouse populations vary and should be 

managed not by a one-size-fits-all approach but through an approach that allows land managers and local stake holders to 

collaborate on practices that benefit individual populations

All Both emc0396GB

273. We also believe that local working groups could provide a forum for the introduction, evaluation and closely controlled 

monitoring of innovative practices. We contend that the species will be better served through methods designed to reach 

population targets rather than proscriptive measures which mayor may not achieve the desired results but whose 

implementation is demanded regardless of its efficacy.

All Both emc0396GB

274. We are encouraged that representatives from the land management agencies have consistently stated that the objective of 

the current planning efforts are to implement practices that will remove the sage grouse from the candidate species list. We 

remain concerned that progress toward that objective may not be sufficient to dissuade the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service from proceeding with a threatened or endangered listing within the established timeframe. Further, such efforts 

could also be circumvented through litigation.

All Both emc0396GB

275. Conversely. Each industry or project that improves habitat or increases population should be rewarded with additional 

opportunities to utilize resources. For example, if a developer plans to construct wind turbine generation which will 

negatively impact the sage grouse population. those impacts could be offset by the concurrent construction of a bio-fuels 

generation facility which utilizes sustainable pinyon and juniper harvesting. In contrast, a proposed project should not be

All Both emc0396GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-73

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

permitted to offset its impacts by eliminating another existing use unless the affected user is justly compensated. For 

instance, mitigation measures for a wind farm should not include relocation of an existing power line unless the wind farm 

developer absorbs the construction costs of the new line, including permitting and design, and demolition costs of the 

existing line.

276. While the impacts of other users, both positive and negative, are peripheral to our operations, the costs of mitigation 

measures are of great concern.

All Both emc0396GB

277. The ElSs and SEISs should analyze and disclose how greater sage- grouse management will impact all established multiple uses 

in existing land use plans. Any RMP/LMP amendment to address greater sage-grouse conservation should include tlexibility 

to allow for alternative actions, the absence of which could actually prevent conservation instead of enhancing the species 

and habitat.

All Both emc0396GB

278. AII decisions should be directly addressed by the lead agency and based on independently critied data All Both emc0396GB

279. Collaboration with local universities could provide valuable insights into the ramifications of the alternatives under 

consideration. Alternatives which are the least restrictive to multiple-use activities should be give top priority.

All Both emc0396GB

280. The NOI states, "The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will recognize valid existing rights." We concur that revisions to 

RMPs and LMPs must recognize valid existing rights.

All Both emc0396GB

281. Scheduling or restricting the timing of multiple-use activities should be flexible to account for unusual weather conditions or 

variations in sage grouse occupancy. Adherence to rigid dates or er::.l'I times of day should be tempered by on-the-ground 

observations and monitoring.

All Both emc0396GB

282. The NO! also states: "The BLM and FS will consider a range of reasonable alternatives. including appropriate management 

prescriptions that focus on the relative values of resources while contributing to the conservation of the greater sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse habitat." Alternatives should be developed and adopted according to impacts on other multiple uses. In

management decisions, flexibility for case-by-case decisions will allow modifications as needed.

All Both emc0396GB

283. MOnitOring should remain flexible enough to allow local input. Independently verified monitoring data should require 

changes in multiple-use activities only when prevalent data clearly indicates a causal relationship between the activity and an 

impact on population.

All Both emc0396GB

284. Instructional Memorandwn 2012-043 designates sage grouse habitat as either Preliminary Priority Habitat or Preliminary 

General Habitat. We have been unable to find record of the solicitation of public comment into these designations. While we 

agree that changes in management practices in some areas are more likely to result in significant habitat improvements than 

others, data from both state and local sources should be incorporated. Criteria for the respective designations should be 

clearly defined prior to evaluation. Priority mapping and designations should only include areas that are actually used by sage 

grouse.

All Both emc0396GB

285. We believe that the absence of the required public comment period necessitates suspension of the instructional 

memorandum pending revision.

All Both emc0396GB

286. Analyses prepared during the NEPA process should not start with the asswnption that a given activity embodied within the 

multiple-use concept is a threat to sage grouse habitat or conservation. Rather, the starting premise should be that properly 

All Both emc0396GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-74 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

managed activities can provide benefits for sage grouse. The analysis should make every effort to incorporate sustainably

managed activities into the prctection strategies.

287. Disappointed that there was no "formal" presentation or question and answer period. All Both cfc0034GB

288. Has anyone stopped and asked "what are we doing right" as far as the good #'s of birds on local ranches where there have 

been leks for many years that flourish? Everything is focused on don't, don't , don't! Stop and listen and learn the local 

knowlegde.

All Both cfc0034GB

289. Greater sage‐grouse exist within a complex sagebrush‐dominated landscape, the ecology of which varies from place to place 

as well as over time at a given location. When faced with managing complex problems, it is important to realize that 

sage‐grouse populations respond to variation in the ecosystems within which they exist and that the future integrity of 

sage‐grouse (and other sagebrush obligate wildlife species) is inexorably tied to the health of the ecosystem itself. This 

concept is critical to effective management of sage‐grouse habitat resources. However, under the influence of political, 

judicial and societal pressures, the concept of managing complex ecosystems can be supplanted with rigid regulatory 

structure.

All Both emc0192GB

290. When dealing with simple problems a rigid structure can be effective; for example determining the threshold of oil well 

densities below which sage‐grouse population performance will improve or be satisfactory. Conversely, when faced with 

management within a complex ecosystem, we cannot effectively regulate improved sage‐grouse performance with 

speciescentric regulatory measures, particularly when we lack fundamental solutions to the ecosystem‐based problems 

driving reduced sage‐grouse abundance to begin with (e.g., as is the case with management of invasive annual grasses). Nor 

can we use regulation to curtail formative ecological processes (e.g., fire in mountain big sagebrush communities) associated

with ecosystem function and simultaneously expect improved sage‐grouse habitat and population performance over time. By 

the same token, we should not forgo management actions needed to promote long‐term ecosystem integrity for the sake of 

short‐term benefit to sage‐grouse or any other species. To do so would be to hold the ecosystem as subservient to the 

habitat requirements of a single species.

All Both emc0192GB

291. On December 27, 2012, an Instruction Memorandum (No. 2012-044) was issued by the Bureau of Land Management's 

Washington D.C. office. The Instruction Memorandum provides direction to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for 

considering Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures identified in the Sage-Grouse-National Technical Team's (NTT) -

A Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures. As a result of the NIT report, the BLM through the 

instruction memorandum has adopted several interim protective measures for Preliminary Priority and Preliminary General

Sage Grouse habitat. In some cases, these measures have the potential to have significant impacts to multiple uses on public 

lands and other natural resources. These potential impacts should be analyzed under NEP A before implementation. NY 

Energy recommends that current protective measures identified in the current Land Use Plans be utilized until this analysis 

is completed.

All Both emc0198GB

292. strongly oppose components of the 2010 Conservation Measures that lack the flexibility to adapt to local management 

issues. The plan amendments should avoid inflexible management standards. Rather than impose a inflexible, broad-brush

management prescription for the Grouse, I suggest the BLM adopts a "landscape specific" approach to minimize the impacts 

All Both emc0199GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-75

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

on both the Grouse and the recreating public. For example, I oppose the provision mandating that any "anthropogenic 

disturbances" cover less than 3% of the total sage grouse habitat. Without any flexibility, theimplementation of this standard 

on the ground will be extremely difficult. Indeed, the agencies may be forced to restrict activities that have been found to 

have little to no impact on the grouse.

293. I am asking that you will please consider all input and valid science as well as unintended consequenses when making your 

decisions on this very important decision !

All Both emc0311GB

294. While the CCSM Project is located entirely outside Sage-Grouse Core Area, the project is in an area containing suitable 

greater sage-grouse habitat with a year round population of greater sagegrouse. As a consequence, in 2009 PCW began a 

study of wind energy impacts on greater sagegrouse. The PCW study is also evaluating the efficacy of various treatments and 

conservation measures on greater sage-grouse populations by maintaining GPS tags on over 50 female greater sage-grouse 

and monitoring their daily movements, habitat uses, and demographic patterns throughout the seasons. In 2010, the study 

was expanded to include research examining greater sage-grouse seasonal habitat selection and a research team composed 

of PCW, SWCA Environmental Consultants, the University of Missouri (Dr. Joshua Millspaugh), the U.S. Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department was formed. In 2011, the research project 

was expanded further with funding from the Sage-Grouse Research Collaborative (SRC) formed under the auspices of the 

National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC). The SRC grant initiated research on the ecology of male greater 

sagegrouse in relation to wind energy development in Wyoming. For 2012, the PCW research team is monitoring 90 greater 

sage-grouse with GPS tags and 100 juvenile and adult male greater sage-grouse with VHF tags at the CCSM Project site. 

Through its research and studies, PCW has expertise in greater sage-grouse biology and sagebrush management and has a 

vital interest in greater sage-grouse and public lands management.

All Both emc0399GB

295. PCW and its affiliates support a coordinated effort by BLM and the USFS to avoid potential listing of the greater sage-grouse 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Establishing consistent objectives and measures for the conservation of greater 

sage-grouse and its habitat is a reasonable and prudent approach. The widespread distribution of greater sage-grouse habitat

throughout the West and the large number of agencies and jurisdictions involved necessitates consistency in management 

actions. Any action taken by the agencies to develop management and conservation standards for greater sage-grouse will 

have far reaching consequences to existing and future operations on public lands and National Forest System lands. The

development of such standards must be approached cautiously and responsibly.

All Both emc0399GB

296. Due to the significant consequences of greater sage-grouse management decisions, the designation of habitat and 

development of conservation standards must be carefully evaluated by the BLM and the USFS with significant input from the 

public. PCW recognizes that BLM and the USFS are tasked with managing a wide variety of natural resources for the benefit 

of the public. Resource Management Plans (RMP) and Land and Resource Management Plans (LMP) are intended to create a 

balanced approach to the management of these resources in accordance with the intent of Congress and to meet the mission 

and goals outlined in the DOl Strategic Plan.

All Both emc0399GB

297. In the interest of implementing RMPs and LMPs compatible with agency goals and mandates, BLM and USFS must consider 

that both agencies have a multiple use mandate that creates an obligation for each agency to manage lands for multiple uses 

for the benefit of the public. For the BLM, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides that "goals and

All Both emc0399GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-76 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple 

use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law." 10 For the USFS, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

establishes a multiple-use and sustained yield policy with respect to the management of national forests." Specifically, NFMA 

calls for the coordination of the multiple diverse uses of National Forest System (NFS) lands.

298. Ultimately the multiple use mandates of both agencies must be taken into consideration when amending RMPs and LMPs 

with a focus on single species conservation. While the goal of the amendment process discussed in the NOI is the 

conservation of greater sage-grouse to prevent ESA listing, greater sage-grouse conservation is not the primary goal of 

either agency or their respective management plans. The RMP and LMP exist to implement a resource management strategy 

in accordance with the intent of Congress and to meet the agency mission and goals. '2 Environmental protection and 

resource utilization are not mutually exclusive and it is not appropriate for BLM and USFS to make overarching management 

decisions based upon single resource management, much less single species management. The effect of such decisions on

other resources and competing public interests must be considered.

All Both emc0399GB

299. In addition to considering all public land resources and interests, any management or conservation strategy adopted by the 

BLM or USFS should encourage cooperation among project proponents, responsible agencies, and those with existing rights 

and operations. Conservation success is dependent upon the coordination of all land uses to conserve and enhance habitat. 

It is important to recognize that there may be multiple entities operating simultaneously on public lands, each with a separate 

responsibility and operation. Any strategy should encourage coordination among these land users, e.g. ranchers, agricultural 

producers, oil and gas producers, transmission and wind developers, and insure that the burden of conservation does not fall 

to any single user, but is instead a cooperative and successful effort.

All Both emc0399GB

300. Given the widespread effects of greater sage-grouse management decisions in the West, the alternatives developedfor the 

proposed EISs and SEISs should carefully consider a wide range of conservation and mitigation measures

All Both emc0399GB

301. PCW supports an adaptive approach to conservation and management as proposed by BLM and USFS in the NO!. An 

adaptive framework allows agencies to utilize the most current literature and research to make informed decisions. Any 

management framework developed should also allow agencies the necessary latitude to consider site-specific conditions and 

project specific information. In many cases, project proponents have made significant efforts to research and evaluate local 

conditions and to develop effective conservation strategies on a project specific basis. Pew and its affiliates strive to develop 

projects in an environmentally responsible manner. As discussed above, pew has gone to great lengths to study greater 

sage-grouse and their habitat. Any framework proposed should allow for consideration of the information and expertise 

developed by project proponents such as pew.

All Both emc0399GB

302. PCW and its affiliate TransWest currently have projects undergoing NEPA analysis, as discussed above, with one draft EIS 

issued and another planned for this summer. Pew and TransWest have made significant investments in the projects, including 

environmental studies in support of the NEPA process, over a number of years. Flexibility should be maintained in BLM's and 

the USFS's management framework to allow for consideration of projects currently undergoing NEPA analysis; particularly 

when proponents, such as pew and TransWest have made significant efforts to promote conservation and to develop 

projects in an environmentally responsible manner

All Both emc0399GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-77

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

303. Recognition should be given to the investments made by project applicants to date when creating a new management 

framework and procedures for review and approval of implementation actions in the LUP process.

All Both emc0399GB

304. The NOI cites inadequate regulatory mechanisms to conserver greater sage-grouse as one of the listing factors considered 

by the FWS in its "Warranted by Precluded" decision. To address this, the BLM and USFS propose to incorporate consistent 

objectives and conservation measures for the protection of greater sage-grouse and its habitat into relevant RMPs and LMPs, 

respectively, by September 2014 in order to avoid a potential listing under the ESA.

All Both emc0399GB

305. The Interim Management IM provides that if a proposed ROW would likely have more than minor adverse effects, then BLM 

is to follow a multi-step process to review the application. For pending applications, such as the TWE Project application, 

BLM is to assess the impact of the proposed ROW on greater sage-grouse and its habitat, and implement the following: 1. 

Ensure that reasonable alternatives for siting the ROW outside of the PPH or within a BLM designated utility corridor are 

considered and analyzed in the NEPA document. 2. Identify technically feasible best management practices, conditions, etc. 

(e.g., siting, burying power lines) that may be implemented in order to eliminate or minimize impacts. To the extent that the 

first point merely restates the NEPA requirement that agencies must consider a range of reasonable alternatives, pew has no 

objections and supports BLM's management direction.

All Both emc0399GB

306. In developing reasonable alternatives for the EISs and SEISs, the alternatives must be practical or feasible from the technical 

and economic standpoint and using common sense.

All Both emc0399GB

307. The IM fails to describe circumstances or provide objective standards for when it may be appropriate for a Field Office to 

reject or deny a ROW application, which may lead to a Field Office Manager acting arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting or 

denying an application.

All Both emc0399GB

308. In addition, this stipUlation fails to consider that BLM Field Offices have the ability through BLM's planning regulations as well 

as BLM's planning handbook to consider and authorize a plan amendment in connection with a proposed action, should one 

be necessary to address greater sage-grouse concerns in relation to an implementation action

All Both emc0399GB

309. Finally, this stipulation fails to consider the significant investment in time and money an applicant may have expended to 

prepare and file a ROW application prior to the effective date of the Interim Management IM.,

All Both emc0399GB

310. BLM should not defer decision making on ROW applications pending completion of the LUP process. The BLM should 

establish standards through thefederal rule making process for when it may be appropriate for a Field Office to reject or 

deny a ROW application.

All Both emc0399GB

311. 3% Disturbance Cap. There is no support provided for the 3% disturbance cap value that is referenced throughout the NTT 

Report. A citation for this disturbance level needs to be provided. In the Wyoming Core Area Strategy (Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011-5) 5% is identified as the maximum acceptable disturbance level. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated 

that the Core Area Strategy, and by implication the 5% disturbance level, is an acceptable regulatory mechanism to protect 

greater sage-grouse. If the 3% disturbance level cannot be supported by literature, 5% seems to be a more reasonable 

disturbance level given that it has already been supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If the 3% disturbance level

remains, a range of disturbance values should be analyzed.

All Both emc0399GB

312. BLM's planning process should identify the processes that would be followed for exceptions to the 3% disturbance threshold. All Both emc0399GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-78 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Wyoming's Core Area Strategy has only been implemented for one year and several exceptions have already been made to 

the 5% disturbance threshold. These exceptions have been based on scientific evidence of actual impacts to greater 

sage-grouse habitat and sound siting decisions made on the part of the project applicant. BLM's process should anticipate that 

exceptions will be required as part of its management activities and should plan such that these exceptions can be made in 

a clear and consistent manner.

313. The Preliminary Priority Habitat maps encompass very large areas that contain high quality habitat but also likely contain 

large areas of low-quality or no-quality habitats. It is unclear whether the 3% threshold applies strictly to all areas within the 

boundaries ofthe Preliminary Priority polygons or only those portions of the Priority Habitat areas that provide habitat for

greater sage-grouse.

All Both emc0399GB

314. Priority greater sage-grouse habitat is identified as areas that have the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing 

greater sage-grouse populations and include breeding, late broodrearing,winter concentration areas, and where known, 

migration or connectivity corridors. The BLM needs to identify Preliminary Priority Habitat that currently have greater than 

3% disturbance and explain why these areas are being evaluated as priority greater sage-grouse habitat. It is contradictory 

that areas that are currently disturbed above the 3% threshold are identified as Preliminary Priority Habitat and providing the 

"highest conservation value" when BLM's planning process is evaluating options to limit development after new disturbance 

raises total disturbance above the 3% threshold.

All BLM emc0399GB

315. It appears that the intent of the 3% disturbance threshold is to allow for up to 3% disturbance of BLM lands. It is very likely 

that a land-rush effect will occur on public lands until the 3% threshold is met at which time new disturbance will be moved 

to adjacent private or state lands where BLM has no jurisdiction. This will result in a disturbance threshold greater than 3% 

on the landscape and the unintended consequence of increasing disturbance in greater sage-grouse habitat. In areas with high 

levels of private lands, such as the checkerboard lands, BLM should evaluate whether Priority Habitat should be designated, 

and if it is, whether different conservation approaches that do not include disturbance thresholds should be implemented.

All BLM emc0399GB

316. 70% Land Cover. The second sub-objective in the bulleted list at the bottom of page 7 of the NTT Report indicates that 

BLM's goal is to manage or restore priority areas such that 70% of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat. The 

scientific basis ofthe 70% threshold needs to be provided. In some areas and some seasons, greater sage-grouse utilize 

landscapes that contain far less than 70% sagebrush. PCW's greater sage-grouse study has demonstrated that during 

brood-rearing periods, female greater sage-grouse and their broods select areas in and adjacent to agricultural fields and wet 

meadows where the sagebrush cover is less than 70% of the landscape. Additionally, what constitutes adequate sagebrush 

cover should be defined, either later in the document or a referenced footnote to scientific literatures.

All BLM emc0399GB

317. In preparing its EISs and SEISs, the BLM should check its sources and confirm that the studies actually support BLM's 

conclusions and analysis.

All Both emc0399GB

318. Definition of Terms. BLM should be careful to define all terms and concepts in its EISs and SEISs. For instance, the NTT 

Report discusses large-scale disturbances, migratory and nonmigratory populations, and secondary roads without providing 

definitions or discussion of what BLM considers, for example, a large-scale disturbance to entail. A definition of Ecological 

Site Description was omitted from the NTT Report glossary.

All Both emc0399GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-79

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

319. As Courts have reversedfederal agency decisions based upon the agency'sfailure to consider best available science or to 

disclose relevant shortcomings in EIS data or models, the BLM and the USFS in their LUP processes should insure that they 

use best available science for analysis in the EISs and SEISs, and that management decisions and land use planning are based 

upon sound science, supported by peer-reviewed scientific literature.

All Both emc0399GB

320. In summary, pew supports BLM's and the USFS's objectives of greater sage-grouse conservation to prevent listing of the 

species under the ESA. pew also supports BLM's and the USFS's multiple use mandates. The BLM and USFS must strike a 

careful balance between species management and public lands and NFS land development so as to ensure America has the 

resources it needs to meet its economic, national policy and national security goals.

All Both emc0399GB

321. Local Governments should be given a "government to government" status when BLM or Forest Service land use plans are 

amended or prepared. Counties should be offered cooperating agency status, and be consulted at the same level as other 

federal agencies or tribes.

All Both emc0386GB

322. I strongly support the 2010 Conservation Measures. All Both emc0184GB, 

emc0079RM

323. I strongly oppose the scope of the 2010 Conservation Measures that are clearly aimed at keeping the American public from 

being able to enjoy and recreate on Federal Public lands. Every year, it is more evident with Conservation projects prepared 

by the Forest Service and BLM are abusing their power by using loopholes like the Endangered Speices Act to push tax paying 

Americans off of Federal lands.

All Both emc0185GB

324. The Conservancy is very supportive of the overall goals of ELM and USFS to comprehensively and consistently address

conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse in all applicable Resource Management Plans (RMP) and Land Management Plans 

(LMP) and commends ELM for proactively collaborating with USFS in developing conservation measures. This approach is 

essential in ensuring the long term viability of this iconic species. The contributions of BLM and USFS will be critical to efforts 

to preclude the species' listing under the Endangered Species Act, through ensuring adequate regulatory mechanisms are in 

place for affected federal lands, per the March 23, 2010 listing decision of "warranted but precluded" by the US Fish & 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). We believe this effort provides a unique opportunity for ELM to proactively address impacts to 

critical sage/shrub steppe habitats, a chance to ensure that impacts from a wide variety of land uses are avoided, minimized, 

and offset to the greatest extent possible.

All Both emc0407GB

325. The Conservancy recommends BLM and the USFS incorporate the following in developing the conservation measures and 

regulatory mechanisms for Greater Sage-Grouse, applied across each of the two planning regions, within sub-regions, and in 

all RMPs/LMPs affected by this effort: A mitigation framework for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation' I that fully embraces 

the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, minimize and offset;

All Both emc0407GB

326. Use of best-available science on the population status, threats and impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitats. It is 

not clear from the various materials made available by ELM, e.g. Priority Habitat maps, that they accurately or adequately 

reflect the current state of knowledge of Greater Sage-Grouse;

All Both emc0407GB

327. A scientifically-based and rigorous monitoring program to determine the success or failure of conservation efforts, coupled 

to an adaptive management framework, as is recommended in the National Technical Team (NTT) report; such a program 

All Both emc0407GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-80 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

must be implemented as soon as possible in the plan revision process in collaboration with all appropriate stakeholders

328. Greater Sage-Grouse conservation guidelines (established via this effort or by Instructional Memorandum No. 2012- 043 or 

subsequent revisions) that are flexible enough so that local guidelines developed by other stakeholders (e.g., state wildlife 

agencies) may apply if they are deemed acceptable by USFWS and ELM as helping to meet the criteria to prevent sage-grouse 

listing;

All Both emc0407GB

329. Ensure the conservation measures outlined in "A Report on Natlonal Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" 

produced In December, 2011, by the NTT be used for all resource programs. These measures are, as the report itself 

suggests, the "starting point to be used in the BLM's planning processes" and we strongly recommend that strict, quantitative 

guidelines that are supported by the best available science be incorporated wherever possible in the process. This should 

include development of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that provide meaningful, actionable safeguards to minimize 

impacts to Greater SageGrouse and their habitats from allowed land uses, activities or programs

All Both emc0407GB

330. We strongly urge the adoption of a robust compensatory mitigation program for unavoidable impacts. The program should 

consider both on-site and off-site mitigation for activities that may harm sage-grouse well in advance of permitting or upon 

initiation of a permitting process; adequately assesses direct and indirect impacts to sage grouse (mitigation requirements); 

focuses mitigation efforts towards those areas that demonstrate the best opportunity to ensure viability of species and 

habitats over time; creates a mitigation framework that ensures the best mitigation sites, actions and mechanisms allow for 

the highest and best mitigation to be achieved; and ensures enduring mitigation that equals the extent and duration of the 

ecological impacts, over and above existing conservation management mandates.

All Both emc0407GB

331. Via development of the EIS's for conservation of Greater SageGrouse, BLM has the opportunity to create an effective

mitigation framework with measures that deliver lasting, tangible results. At a minimum, the Conservancy recommends that

notwithstanding other NEPA requirements, BLM explicitly integrate the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) January 

14, 2011 guidance titled "Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated

Findings of No Significant Impact" into the draft EIS's.

All Both emc0407GB

332. Additionally, with regard to monitoring, e.g. assessing the actual (as distinct from projected or predicted) impacts of various 

land uses, projects and activities and the success or failure of measures designed to avoid, minimize or offset impacts, we 

recommend BLM incorporate robust measures for both monitoring and adaptive management. As stated in BLM's guidance

on preparing NEPA analyses: "In a record of decision (ROD), a monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and 

summarized where applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR lS0S.2(c)). The ROD must identify the monitoring and enforcement 

programs that have been selected and plainly indicate that they were adopted as part of the agency's decision (see Question 

34c, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). The ROD must delineate 

the monitoring measures in sufficient detail to constitute an enforceable commitment, or incorporate by reference the 

portions of the EIS that do so (see Question 34c, CEQ, Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, 

March 23, 1981). "

All Both emc0407GB

333. Landscape-scale ecological assessments are the backbone of a mitigation framework, they are platform upon which all land

decisions rest. We cannot over-emphasize the importance of landscape-scale ecological assessments in land-use planning and 

All Both emc0407GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-81

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

decision-making. The information provided by such assessments provldes the basis of a mitigation framework by which land

managers can ensure the best land management decisions can be forwarded, decisions that can ensure the least conflict with

important ecological resources, while maintaining these resources for future generations - while allowing human needs to be 

met.

334. The value of an ecoregional assessment is its ability to determine areas inportant for species and habitat conservation targets 

and goals across large areas, areas that may be most appropriate for targeting mitigation investments, and areas that contain 

relatively less conservation value and may be most appropriate for a variety of land disturbance activities, from an ecological 

perspective. The value of this approach is that it is consistently applied across jurisdictions, uses the best available science and 

other information, and sets ambitious, long-range conservation priorities.

All Both emc0407GB

335. We recommend that the goal of the landscape-scale assessment should be to contribute to the persistence, distribution and

diversity of the ecoregional biota and all its natural components and processes today and in the future, while accommodating 

other land uses, activities or projects and importantly, adapting to climate change.

All Both emc0407GB

336. An appropriate landscape-scale ecological assessment would contain an evall'ation of both public and private lands in a 

geographic area that makes sense from a biological perspective; would define objectives that guide selection of conservation 

targets, structure of impact analyses, and the targets and measures selected for monitoring; would evaluate the impact of 

various planning scenarios on the biodiversity and ecosystem function goals, the fragmentation of intact habitats, as well as 

on the target species; would implement and improve upon existing conservation and recovery plans; would include an 

adaptive management framework; and would result in a conservation reserve design that best satisfies this suite of biological 

goals while also meeting other land use needs

All Both emc0407GB

337. We note and enthusiastically support BLM's current efforts conducting Rapid Ecological Assessments (REA) for all western

ecoregions which contain lands they administer (including lands not under their management authority), with the goal of

informing appropriate management responses to energy development and climate change, for use in amending or revising 

resource management plans (RMPs) and in other planning processes.

All Both emc0407GB

338. We recommend BLM use REAs (if completed) as it considers conservation measures to protect Greater Sage-Grouse All Both emc0407GB

339. Creating a Mitigation Framework: The Mitigation Hierarchy The Nature Conservancy believes that BLM can devise and

implement mitigation protocols that benefit people and nature. We have learned in our experience as land managers that

conservation and human uses can co-exist when human uses, such as energy development, observe a common sense and 

practicable mitigation hierarchy based on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation (offset) of harm.

All Both emc0407GB

340. The Mitlgation Hierarchy; Avoidance In the first step, avoidance, the mitigation hierarchy calls for avoidance of the most 

ecologically important and/or sensitive habitats entirely. A robust, landscape-scale ecological assessment should be used to 

identify and avoid areas and associated species and habitats that are ecologically core, sensitive and/or intact. We believe 

avoidance of most (if not all) land disturbance activities in high quality core sage grouse habitats will be critical to avoid listing 

under the Endangered Species Act, and we strongly recommend BLM adopt this approach as it designs conservation 

measures to protect Greater Sage-Grouse.

All Both emc0407GB

341. The Mitigation Hierarchy: minimization lIn the second step of the mitigation hierarchy, minimization, all activities, land uses All Both emc0407GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-82 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

or programs should be designed and managed in a manner that avoids or minimizes harm to habitats and species. This means 

identifying, developing, and employing BMPs that have been determined to be applicable to a given activity or land use and 

that actually limit harm to habitats and species. BLM should provide concrete guidance in the EIS's on how specific impacts 

can or will be minimized and which specific BMPs will be applied in the context of a given application, coupled with 

monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for ensuring that BMPs determined to be applicable will in fact be adopted and 

used. These BMPs would also specify which monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are applicable and should be adopted. 

Adaptive management should also be included in the BMPs (including funding responsibilities) to allow activities or land uses 

to be modified based on the results of monitoring the actual, as distinct from projected, ecological impacts of the land use, 

or activity, taking into account variances over time from the ecological conditions that may have been initially presumed to 

be stable over the projected duration of the acth·ity.

342. The Conservancy commends the BLM for the thorough discussions of all the various resource programs contained in 1M 

2012-043 and the NTT document and in encouraging staff to analyze potential impacts of these programs on sage-grouse 

during the Plan revision process. However, we suggest that additional standardization is needed to ensure consistency 

across Resource Areas in addressing these many programs; this could be best accomplished by developing a set of BMPs for 

each resource program as it relates to conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. We note that the NTT 

report, Appendices D, E, and F, do contain a set of BMPs for some resource programs. However, these need to be 

strengthened by the addition of quantitative metrics whenever possible and additional BMPs are needed for other resource 

programs. without such an application of consistent BMPs across RMPs and LMPs, it is difficult for the Conservancy to see 

how the concerns raised about inadequacy of regulatory practices could be remedied.

All Both emc0407GB

343. The Mitigation Hierarchy: Offset of Unavoidable Impacts In the third step of the mitigation hierarchy, offset of unavoidable 

impacts, effective measures must be taken in the face of unavoidable negative impacts to affected habitats and species. A 

successful mitigation framework established in the EIS's must have an offset program that is adaptable to dlfferences In land 

uses, actlvitles or programs·It must reflect varying avallabilitles of private lands. It must account for the full cumulative impact 

of land disturbance actlvitles across a landscape, and be at a sufficient scale to ensure ecologlcal vlability. It must be as 

enduring and longlasting as the impacts, i.e. in perpetuity

All Both emc0407GB

344. To ensure unavoidable impacts are fully offset, the Conservancy recommends that BLM establish an off-site compensatory

mitigation program within the mitigation framework that, in addition to acquisition of private lands, allows mitigation on BLM 

and USFS-administered lands where impacts cannot be addressed through acquisition and long-term management of private 

lands; allows mitigation on BLM and USFS-administered lands where conservation designation and management can achieve

mitigation needs/outcomes relative to specific impacts to habitats and associated species; ensures adequate funding over

time to achieve mitigation outcomes; and creates third partymanaged endowments of mitigation funds to manage mitigation

areas, and other mitigation activities. T

All Both emc0407GB

345. However, adequate mitigation is unlikely to be achieved by attempting to treat each activity or project, and the required

offsets of that activity or project, separately. This "one off" approach historically has resulted in a patchwork of small

"mitigation offset" sites that are of insufficient scale and connectivity to be ecologically viable. We recommend BLM explicitly 

address the need to "bundle" mitigation offsets for impacts in a region together (e.g.in a mitigation fund) to increase the 

All Both emc0407GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-83

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

likelihood of actually achieving an effective and enduring offset of ecological impacts

346. a robust compensatory mitigation program could contribute significantly toward the conservation of sage-grouse and, if 

implemented correctly, allow the BLM to meet both its sage-grouse and resource use goals.

All Both emc0407GB

347. Such a program should consist of the following six elements: 1. A landscape assessment or ecological baseline upon which 

unavoidable impacts are assessed. a. This should use existing, best available science as its basis, specifically the work done 

within the Rapid Ecological Assessments, other ELM processes, and State Wildlife Action Plans. B.)Develop a process to 

incorporate new landscape scale (and finer scale where appropriate) ecological data as it becomes available to ensure the 

ecological baseline reflects the best available science and changing conditions of the landscape(s)

All Both emc0407GB

348. A mechanism to assess and quantify unavoidable impacts over the life of the impacts. a. Seek to use an existing, transparent, 

and consistent methodology for assessing impacts from all resource projects that affect sage-grouse or their habitat. b. 

Commit to a science-based, stakeholder-driven process to identify, modify, and get buy-in on a specific methodology.

All Both emc0407GB

349. 3.) A structure or other mechanism to hold and apply mitigation investments. A. At a minimum, structures should be 

regional-, state-, or landscape-based to ensure mitigation investments are responding to impacts on the specific landscape 

being impacted. B. The structure should include, at a minimum, representation by ELM, State wildlife agencies, USFWS, and 

a third-party independent organization to manage and distribute mitigation funds (e.g., NFWF). Include guidance and 

oversight by stakeholders in the success of the mitigation, such as counties, the conservation community, tribes, industry, 

sportsmen, etc.

All Both emc0407GB

350. 4.) A prioritization plan as to where and how mitigation investments should be made based on the landscape

assessment/ecological baseline. This plan should prioritize actions to implement conservation measures to achieve the best 

conservation return on the mitigation investment. Consider a stakeholder process to ensure adequacy and buyin of plans 

and priority actions.

All Both emc0407GB

351. Include a monitoring program to ensure mitigation results are • I adequate relative to impacts over the life of the impacts,

with a feedback loop to ensure that mitigation investments adequately reflect sufficient mitigation. This is not to seek

additional mitigation from the developer for a specific project once mitigation has been established. This is solely to ensure 

that the mechanisms are adequate for mitigation of future projects.

All Both emc0407GB

352. In order to ensure the effectiveness of mitigation investment on BLM and USFS-adrninistered lands, The Nature 

Conservancy believes it is necessary to change the designation of lands identified to meet off-site mitigation needs, from 

multiple-use to stronger categories of protection and management, via amendments or revisions to the relevant RMP, LMP 

or other land-use plan. Additionally, it is especially important that compensatory mitigation dollars directed towards BLM or 

USFS-administered lands be spent on actions that provide clear and additive benefits rather than backfill existing agency 

activities and resources.

All Both emc0407GB

353. In addition to our recommendation that BLM use the EIS as an opportunity to incorporate a mitigation framework as a basis 

for making land use decisions, we offer the following specific minimum recommendations relating to Greater Sage-Grouse

conservation that we feel must be reflected in the RMP/LMP revision process. We base these recommendations on the 

recently released Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (1M 2012-043), BLM National Greater 

All BLM emc0407GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-84 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy (1M 2012-044), and the NTT's December, 2011, report.

354. We support the concept of identifying and mapping the Priority and General Habitat classes for sage-grouse and feel this is 

entirely consistent with sage-grouse conservation strategies outlined in documents such as the WAFWA Greater 

SageGrouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) and the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order 

2011-S

All Both emc0407GB

355. However, due to the key role that these maps and habitat designations will play going forward, it is critical that the following 

points be considered in preparing and maintaining these maps: Priority habitat in particular must be defined accurately and 

precisely based on the best currently available science and data from throughout the sage-grouse's range. We strongly 

recommend that the mapped priority habitat include, as a starting point or minimum, the 75% core areas as defined in 

Doherty et al. (2011) with a buffer of at least 8.5 km there are likely to be instances Where the priority habitat should be 

greater than the Doherty et al. (2011) findings.

All Both emc0407GB

356. It is imperative that Priority and General Habitat maps incorporate wintering range brood-rearing habitat and migration 

corridors where they do not overlap with breeding habitat.

All Both emc0407GB

357. While we are supportive of BLM's commitment to develop the Priority and General Habitat maps collaboratively with state 

wildlife agencies and to store them at the National Operations Center (as discussed in 1M 2012-043), we urge that the map 

development process be standardized across states, opened up to the full array of stakeholders with an interest in 

sage-grouse habitat delineation, including nongovernmental organizations, and that the maps and underlying data be made 

readily and easily available to the general public and other agencies outside of BLM and state wildlife agencies via a web site 

or similar outlet (e.g., SAGEMAP) .

All Both emc0407GB

358. We urge that the mapping process to delineate Priority and General Habitat maps include a component by which the

landscape context in which these habitats is also designated; we reconunend following the "core area" identification process 

used in many states. A strict delineation of Habitats on only BLM lands (e.g., the preliminary habitat map released for Nevada 

on March 9, 2012) leads in many parts of the range to fragmented blocks of habitat defined purely by ownership. We cannot 

expect to manage viable populations of sage-grouse on sectionsized areas; these units must be managed collectively within 

the wider landscape context and with the cooperation of adjacent federal, state, or private landowners.

All Both emc0407GB

359. twe recommend that BLM and USFS include a systematic method of determining a proposed project affected area that is 

uniform across all RMPs/LMPs. The Wyoming Governor's Executive Order 2011-5 contains one such method in its 

Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool. The buffer distance used should be based on the best available current science (e.g., 

Holloran et al. 2010) and should be a minimum of 8.5 km from the boundary of the project footprint. This definition is 

important as it will influence the calculation of the disturbance cap (see below)

All Both emc0407GB

360. The Conservancy strongly recommends the implementation of a fixed, quantitative disturbance cap within all RMPs/LMPs 

when analyzing potential projects that may affect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. This concept is explicitly mentioned in the 

NTT report (pages 7 and 8) and is incorporated into the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order 2011-5.

All Both emc0407GB

361. In order to make this cap effective in the context of BLM and USFS plan revisions, the following considerations need to be 

incorporated: 1. The cap should be a maximum of 3% of the proposed project affected area as specified in the NTT report 

All Both emc0407GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-85

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and should not be exceeded, except where superseded by pre-existing agreements.

362. 2. This cap should be a fixed amount across the entire proposed project affected area and should not be an average amount 

of disturbance across smaller portions of the affected area (e.g., sections)

All Both emc0407GB

363. 3. Disturbance should be defined precisely, but broadly, as mentioned in the NTT report and should be calculated as the

cumulative quantity of disturbance in the proposed project area over time, including historic (non-recovered), current, and 

proposed future disturbance. It should also take into account indirect impacts associated with the disturbance.

All Both emc0407GB

364. 4. We recommend that successful restoration (following the recommendations given in the NTT report) and/or off-site

compensatory mitigation efforts be considered and allowed as steps toward reducing the overall amount of disturbance

counted in a proposed project affected area when calculating disturbance caps. Offsite mitigation is also appropriate to offset 

the disturbance that is allowed within the 3% percent cap.

All Both emc0407GB

365. 5. The disturbance cap should be developed in a manner that does not steer development to pristine or undeveloped areas. All Both emc0407GB

366. The Conservancy strongly recommends that the BLM and USFS pU 5'(;r- deveiop specific, quantitative no surface occupancy 

guidelines and general stipulations for Priority and General Habitat for all activities that are known or may affect Greater 

Sage-Grouse. We specifically recommend that BLM and USFS follow the Wyoming governor's Executive Order 2011-5 in 

this regard. These guidelines and stipulations would be in addition to any disturbance cap and should consist of both distance 

guidelines and appropriate seasonal restrictions. Note that the latter will depend on whether the habitat in question is 

breeding, brood-rearing, wintering, or migration habitat. Specific activities to be covered by these guidelines and stipulations

should include, but are not restricted to, the following: 15 • Location of roads • Location and form of power lines • Fence 

construction, including location, type, use of raptor-proof poles, and need for flagging • Sagebrush and other vegetation 

removal • Infrastructure maintenance activities • Noise

All Both emc0407GB

367. The Conservancy strongly urges that the BLM and USFS cooperate with the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Sage

Grouse Initiative (SGI), in areas where either SGI knowledge or resources can support better conservation on BLM/USFS 

lands or areas where BLM or USFS can support the better management of habitat on adjacent private lands.

All Both emc0407GB

368. Through a close integration of BLM and USE'S activities with those of the SGI, it is highly likely that the prescriptive measures 

discussed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2010 Conference Report on the SGI will be successful in achieving 

sage-grouse conservation on both private and federal lands.

All Both emc0407GB

369. Through a close integration of BLM and USE'S activities with those of the SGI, it is highly likely that the prescriptive measures 

discussed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2010 Conference Report on the SGI will be successful in achieving 

sage-grouse conservation on both private and federal lands.

All Both emc0407GB

370. To avoid listing BLM needs to evaluate regulatory mechanisms that inform management of those uses that potentially broadly 

affect core sage grouse habitats, including grazing, transportation, and recreation

All Both emc0407GB

371. The Conservancy recommends that the guidelines contained in the NTT report for these uses be followed, with 

contingencies and appropriate measures taken to minimize any impacts to sage-grouse from infrastructure, changes in 

climatic conditions, or other unforeseen events ..

All Both emc0407GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-86 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

372. If we are to be serl0US about recovery of th~ge grouse we need to consider a lot more than habitat no matter if it is 

politically or socially popular. Our habitat is in very good.

All Both emc0377GB

373. IWe would like to see the PGH and PPH maps but have not been able to locate them to date on the state or BLM websites. All Both emc0173GB

374. The following is a direct quote from the BLM published online. "Restoration Priority Areas - areas that have the potential to 

have good sage-grouse habitat, but have existing diturbances (energy development, fire, etc.). The emphasis within these 

areas will be to restore the habitat or reduce existing disturbances." Potential means possible not actual sage-grouse habitat. 

I do believe this kind of statement, idea, whatever you want to call it, is why the San Joaquin Valley is no longer productive.

All Both cfc0003RM

375. We would hope that all decisions be based on proven scientific data. In the past, we have seen that decisions are based on 

a few publications without exploring all the resources. Often data is found that contradicts the data that is being used and 

should have bearing on the decisions being made. We also believe that mapping will be essential to this project. Not all public 

lands are sage grouse habitable, therefore not all lands should be viewed the same when considering sage grouse issues.

All Both cfc0004RM

376. The plan should have an exception clause and a waiver clause after each condition as the UNRBNM plan has. The exception 

clause reads that "an exception to this condition may be granted by the authorizing officer if the operator submits a plan 

which demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated." One example of 

the waiver clause reads: this condition may be waived if the authorized officer determines that the affected area no longer 

contains (examples, winter nesting) habitat for sage grouse.

All Both cfc0004RM

377. We feel that areas will be site specitic and that each tield office should be making their assessments and determination based 

on their area. We also feel that we should follow the current plans we have in place as close as practicable when dealing with 

sage grouse issues.

All Both cfc0004RM

378. We are in full agreement that we need to act to prevent the sage grouse from becoming fully listed under the Endangered 

Species Act, and the consequences that would have on our economy and our constituents. We request that when going 

through the process of developing a plan for the greater sage grouse that you seriously consider what impacts your decisions 

will have on Fergus County and all of Montana.

All Both cfc0004RM

379. I would ask that virtually all activity be allowed on public lands, with little regard for Sage Grouse! Already, they have had an 

extreme effect on the state and national economies!

All Both emc0005RM

380. FinaIly, allow your biologists more flexibility in handling "multiple uses". If the effects of any use is causing wide-spread, 

detrimental effects to the biology of a particular species, than perhaps that activity should be vastly decreased. Allow your

biologists to do what they went to school for instead of being bogged down with red tape and regulation.

All Both emc0010RM

381. As you are aware, just about every research project done by the agencies, the universities, and private researchers site the 

reasons for Sage-Grouse decline. The only factor stalling this, and most other projects related to wildlife needs, is the 

political implications.

All Both emc0012RM

382. Clait Braun's research over more than 30 years, as well as other agency and scientific findings, show a need for grouse 

protection to "save this icon of the American West" which depends on sagebrush throughout all their life processes. Oil and 

gas development, cheatgrass, pinyon-juniper encroachment, West Nile virus, grazing, all contribute to the grouse's decline.

All Both emc0012RM

383. Habitat fragmentation needs to stop. All Both emc0012RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-87

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

384. Power poles which serve as perches for raptors, roads, dust, weeds, noise, etc. are detrimental. All Both emc0012RM

385. The science is being ignored. To improve conditions this must change. The lands which once held 1.1 million Sage-grouse 

now holds fewer than 500,000.

All Both emc0012RM

386. Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments as the BLM prepares to conduct an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to evaluate alternatives for management of Greater Sage-Grouse ("the bird") and its habitat. We look 

forward to our role as a Cooperating Agency during the project.

All Both emc0053RM

387. We understand the need to create and implement plans to prevent listing the bird as an endangered species. However, we 

support an approach where each state develops and implements its own conservation program tailored to meet unique 

needs, circumstances, and resources. Accordingly, we support the sage-grouse task force cochaired by Governor John 

Hickenlooper formed last December to examine ways states can provide management tools and habitat protections for the 

bird. Colorado's Gunnison Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan's policies, processes and protocols should serve as an excellent 

model for this effort.

All Both emc0053RM

388. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. Please let us know when the Cooperating Agency meetings will 

be scheduled for this project.

All Both emc0053RM

389. Also, the County applauds the BLMs successful working relationship with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department 

of AgricultureNRCS, US Forest Service and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) in this effort. Those relationships 

should be maintained and strengthened moving forward. However, conservation efforts and policies must also include ample 

local involvement and incorporation of existing and on-going conservation plans and activities. The County believes these 

efforts need to be made in balance with existing valid multiples uses and in a manner that provides for the long-term 

economic stability of rural Counties, such as ours, whose well being is highly reliant on public land management.

All Both emc0130GB

390. We further encourage the use of existing locally developed resources and knowledge to complete this project. All Both emc0130GB

391. I would like to make one clarification to comment #3 (highlighted below). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (“Plan” updated and adopted April 2011) is intended to 

inform decision-makers regarding biological consequences of various actions on sage-grouse but does not dictate land 

management decisions. This Plan provides biological recommendations for long-term conservation of sagegrouse in Oregon 

based on the best available science. However, ODFW recognizes that county planning commission/courts and other state 

agencies may need to consider these recommendations within the context of socialeconomic issues and decisions that are 

the responsibility of the respective governmental bodies. In short the Plan has no regulatory authority and is purely a 

voluntary guidance document. The BLM/USFS are reminded that Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) completed 

and adopted in 2011 a 5 year sage‐grouse management plan update for habitat areas within the State of Oregon and that the 

conversation and regulatory measures identified within that recently issued plan should largely suffice the guidance needs of

Oregon BLM/USFS without the need of imposition of further practices or regulatory measures.

All Both emc0132GB

392. A single Land Use Plan that covers six states of varied soil types, climate and altitude to us is a precursor to failure. With 

more local involvement in the planning process the better chance of success in the intended goal of stabilizing sage grouse 

numbers.

All Both emc0133GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-88 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

393. The hand out I received at the open house titled “Purpose and Need” states “These Land Use Plans (LUP’s) provide land 

management direction for the BLM and Forest Service Districts within the affected states.” The decline in sage grouse

populations are NOT only a land management issue. The “Endangered Species Act” has contributed to the decline in sage 

grouse numbers. Currently birds of prey (See Spotted Owl) are protected by the ESA and prey on other birds including sage

grouse. Ravens, crows, and magpies raid nests for eggs. Without this taken into account the plan will be based on incomplete 

data. Paragraph two states that the purpose of the LUP amendments is to address the management, restoration, and

conservation of greater sage grouse habitats to support sage grouse population management objectives for the affected 

states”. The inability of the Federal Government to try new range management strategies and to adopt plans that have been 

developed by the private sector is systematic of the defects in range management developed by government.

All Both emc0133GB

394. The last paragraph of this page states the “need to establish “regulatory mechanisms” to respond to the recent “warranted, 

but precluded” ESA listing petition decision from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was 

identified as a major threat in the FWS finding on the petition”. A policy of inclusion, on an equal footing by all stake holders, 

to develop a restoration plan is preferable to overreaching regulation by the government. As noted above there are private 

land owners that have adopted new management plans which have 3 restored their grazing lands without reducing feed 

quality or animal units the land will support. It would be refreshing to see the BLM and Forest Service try to work with users 

to try something other than “stop grazing and make more wilderness” so prevalent in most management plans of the Forest 

Service and to a lesser degree the BLM.

All Both emc0133GB

395. The BOA would hope the “Planning Process”, second handout, development of the new Resource Management Plans 

(RMP’s) will truly listen to all stake holders and not try to ram the one size fits all typical government plan down the throats 

of the people. The RMP’s must develop management plans that include the needs of all wildlife as well as grazing lease 

holders. A plan focused on only one species will be detrimental to other species already sharing the same landscape.

All Both emc0133GB

396. The “Preliminary Planning Issues” hand out opening paragraph hopefully will be followed to adapt each plan to the local 

conditions. The current management strategies of the Forest Service need to be totally repealed and a return to the

principles of the “Organic Administration Act” of 1897, the “Sustained Yield Forest Management Act” of 1944 and the 

“Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960” put in place.

All Both emc0133GB

397. In conclusion the BOA recommends that any plan brought forth from this process should be for the betterment of all grazing 

units and all wildlife. Working with stake holders instead of installing onerous regulation on public land users will improve the 

land and reduce cost of operation. There are multiple land management policies in place in the private sector. Try one or 

more instead of demanding the government plan is the only way.

All Both emc0133GB

398. We encourage the adoption of the Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation Plan guidance and mission statement: • The Plan is 

notintended 10 exclude any users or activities or infringe on legally defined privite properly rights: bill serves to provide 

solutions to problem and issues that affecl sage-grouse and the funclionality of sagebrush communities

All Both emc0136GB

399. So first, I urge you to resist their tactics. Their main goal is to stop development and, as a result, increase donations and 

funding to their groups. It is not to protect the sage grouse or the environment. Their views are anti-science and 

anti-development.

All Both emc0054RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-89

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

400. Second, I urge you to truly consider the impacts of proposed regulations, protections and mitigations related to sage grouse 

(and other issues). Where sage grouse habitat and resource development coincide, you first need to figure out how the two 

can coexist. Withdrawals or timing restrictions should be a final option and only used in the most serious of situations.

All Both emc0054RM

401. Too often, regulators seem to be afraid of lawsuits and environmental groups. These groups cannot win at the ballot box, so 

they try to force their agendas on the rest of us through the courts. You need to understand that, no matter what you 

decide, you WILL get sued. With that in mind, let science and facts guide your decision in finding the appropriate balance.

All Both emc0054RM

402. I believe any man-made disturbances to the historical landscape should be included within the 3% calculation. This would 

include ground that was put into production (hay fields, etc.), and habitat that was inundated with water following the 

building of dams, included to the list provided within the NTT document.

All Both emc0064RM

403. I hope that through this planning process you will work with ranchers instead of against tehm, and figure out a solution that

will benefit everyone.

All Both cfc0069GB

404. Continue livestock grazing and oil and gas production. All Both emc0137GB

405. The bottom line is this: The areas of concern cannot be managed under "pre-settlement" strategies. That thought process is 

unworkable. All the agencies involved have to realize that aggressive predator control and hands on projects must be used.

All Both emc0139GB

406. Passive management strategies such as road closures and the elimination of current or future land uses (grazing, energy 

development, etc.) are no longer a viable option. The idea that sage grouse can be saved by desk jockeys and court orders 

is only a dream. The real world demands more.

All Both emc0139GB

407. Fragmentation. Iron County recognizes the consequences that fragmentation of sagebrush communities can have on sage 

grouse. We also recognize there needs to be proper and consistent guidelines to BLM field offices and Forest Service ranger 

districts that will minimize the impacts of fragmentation. However, Iron County feels that this is not a one-size-fits-all issue 

and there should be sufficient flexibility built into the strategy to deal with local issues.

All Both emc0142GB

408. Communication. Without proper communication, each management agency maintains a separate database concerning 

vegetation treatments, sage grouse population counts, and critical habitat locations. Thus, implementation of strategies 

would possibly be repetitive and an inefficient use of available funds. Much damage due to the threats of development, 

recreational uses, and vegetation treatments may be avoided or diminished with the guidance of a working group involving 

representatives from the entire community.

All Both emc0142GB

409. In addition to the failure of the National Technical Team to propose flexible and proactive solutions to the effects of mineral 

development on sage grouse habitat, the report raises questions on how adequately these have been quantified, even given 

the problems noted above in comparing oil and gas development to minerals.

All Both emc0168GB

410. The report mentions 2 to 10 year lags between the onset of development in the study areas and negative trends in sage 

grouse populations. The occurrence of such a long time lag begs the question of whether the reported declines in sage 

grouse populations in the areas studied are due wholly or in part to regional trends such as weather, disease, etc

All Both emc0168GB

411. We encourage you to go out and look around. Visit the land before you lease it out. Manage the land for the generations to 

come.

All Both emc0152GB

412. These impacts should be considered along with wind turbines and other energy development, domestic grazing levels and All Both emc0163GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-90 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

off-road vehicle use. Thank you for your consideration.

413. As you are well aware, BLM lands make up the bulk of Sage Grouse habitat in the US therefore you have the most sway in 

recovering Sage Grouse populations and avoiding the listing of these birds on the ESA listing. It concerns me deeply that an 

agency to which I have worked for, worked with, which I still feel its responsibility to land management is gravely important 

to maintaining quality of life for those who live in the west and the US, is in effect, allowing the wide spread destruction of 

habitat for these birds by oil and gas mining regulations and implementation of its own grazing policy. I am one of many who 

feel that the policies and plan implementation by the BLM consistently ignores the their own and the abundant external 

science and continually caves to the wishes of industry and the cattle and dairy interests when in fact those interests are 

detrimental to the sage grouse survival

All Both emc0164GB

414. Grouse extinction rest in your hands and if the you don't act and just keep things as status quo as you have for the last 50 

years, not only will sage grouse be extinct but the American public will make your job extinct as well. BLM can be better 

stewards of the land. We the american people, and sage grouse certainly deserve better policy and action by the Dept of 

Interior and the BLM to preserve what remaining resources of wildlife and habitat we have left

All Both emc0164GB

415. Officials of the BLM and Fish and Wildlife have made known their resistance to listing the bird because of the extra problems

it would present for permitting mines and other projects. The mines are owned by foreign entities with offices in the U.S. 

Why do foreign corporations have the power to destroy large areas of U.S. habitat and the environment and leave us with 

the clean-up and transgenerational medical costs? Why does corporate law over-rule constitutional law?

All Both emc170GB

416. The bird is viewed as just a stumbling block to progress. BLM and Fish and Wildlife are not using science, they are using 

political motivations to keep the declining bird off the endangered list

All Both emc0170GB

417. We are submitting these comments for consideration during the scoping process for the Western Region Sage Grouse EIS. 

Economics, Livestock Grazing, Vegetation management, land resource inventory development, sage grouse depredation, and 

population census are issues that need to be assessed in the EIS and all topics need to be considered within the context of 

public lands and BLM should refrain from speculating about private land uses.

All Both emc0179GB

418. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) recognizes that land use planners and managers may need to consider 

recommendations for sage grouse management within the context of social- ‐economic issues of the respective 

governmental bodies. The intent of the Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation plan (ODFW) is to inform decision-­‐makers 

regarding the biological consequences of various actions on sage-­‐grouse, but not to dictate land management decision. 

Also, added as guidance the Oregon Plan is not intended to exclude any users or activities or infringe on legally defined 

private property rights; but serves to provide solutions to problems and issues that affect sage-­‐grouse and the functionality 

of sagebrush communities. With the development of the ODFW plan it seems redundant for the BLM to write another plan. 

We would like the EIS to address the adequacy of that plan to serve as a valid reference for the Western Region EIS.

All BLM emc0179GB

419. The economic and social values of the Western Region ranching community are important considerations that must be 

studied and taken into account for the sage grouse EIS. Habitat protection areas for this species of bird should be carefully

studied to retain compatibility with the private landowner’s business activities to avoid future conflicts. Livestock and 

agriculture production are primary economic concerns in Oregon and land management opportunities on federal and state 

All Both emc0179GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-91

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

lands must remain flexible to meet the needs of the community as well as the animal species that require special conditions.

420. Agriculture producers have participated in numerous federal and state plans and it is inconceivable that the varied plans and

assessments for protection of fish, plants, and animals are not sufficient for sage grouse protection. Currently there are 

Resource Management Plans and grazing allotment plans that set goals and objectives to address environmental impacts of 

activities with specific management objectives intended to improve the landscapes. The current strategies should be given 

priority over developing new standards for the sage grouse EIS.

All Both emc0179GB

421. The basic principles of doing science require a good study design, rigorous data collection, and analysis. The BLM needs to 

address the lack of data analysis within the agency’s database. In Oregon the inventories contained in the records at BLM 

offices are decades old and do not reflect the current issues and newer methods used to make vegetation assessments. 

Invasive plant management is not conducted in way that contributes to upward trends on the landscapes. The Standards of 

Rangeland Health are not conducive to assessments that can be analyzed with assurances calculated through statistical 

analysis. The EIS will remain vulnerable to protests if some level of confidence is not associated with the databases at the BLM 

Districts. Current databases should be thoroughly analyzed and monitoring programs should be developed or modified with 

the help of statisticians.

All BLM emc0179GB

422. A major concern is the possible BLM reliance on professional judgment to determine if short-­‐ and long-­‐term habitat and 

land resource objectives are being achieved or can be achieved. We urge use of rigorous studies for objective decision-­‐

making. Alternatives must be written based on knowledge and research in order to provide a level of confidence in the EIS. 

Professional judgment should not be a surrogate for missing field-­‐work or inventories and the EIS should reflect this 

important point.

All BLM emc0179GB

423. I have tried to find hard scientific data on the population numbers for sage‐grouse and come up empty handed. Your posters 

focused on habitat but did not show actual population numbers. Could you please provide this information and reference it. 

If we are making decisions based on decreased population, we need hard data on the population

All Both emc0174GB

424. Those of us working on the land already make numerous and expensive adjustments to help preserve wildlife. We stay out 

of areas with leks during the breading season and pay a heavy cost because of it. We reclaim, re‐contour and seed disturbed 

ground, etc. We also have the unrecognized effect of decreasing the number of wildfires. I know lots of people that have 

called in wildfires or put them out themselves after seeing a lightning strike. Equipment operators often cut fire lines, etc., and 

it benefits fire management to have them out there. Please recognize the good we do out there.

All Both emc0174GB

425. Both oil and gas and mining could be dealt a regulative death blow over sage‐grouse. This needs to be openly discussed and 

considered as part of the evaluation. It is an issue of national importance. What do we want to do to our natural resource 

industries? They will be effected.

All Both emc0174GB

426. We are submitting these comments for consideration during the scoping process for the Western Region Sage Grouse EIS.

Economics, Livestock Grazing, Vegetation management, land resource inventory development, sage grouse depredation, and

population census are issues that need to be assessed in the EIS and all topics need to be considered within the context of

public lands and BLM should refrain from speculating about private land uses.

All Both emc0179GB

427. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) recognizes that land use planners and managers may need to consider All Both emc0179GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-92 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

recommendations for sage grouse management within the context of social-­‐economic issues of the respective

governmental bodies. The intent of the Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation plan (ODFW) is to inform decision-­‐makers

regarding the biological consequences of various actions on sage-­‐grouse, but not to dictate land management decision.

Also, added as guidance the Oregon Plan is not intended to exclude any users or activities or infringe on legally defined

private property rights; but serves to provide solutions to problems and issues that affect sage-­‐grouse and the functionality

of sagebrush communities. With the development of the ODFW plan it seems redundant for the BLM to write another plan.

We would like the EIS to address the adequacy of that plan to serve as a valid reference for the Western Region EIS.

428. The economic and social values of the Western Region ranching community are important considerations that must be

studied and taken into account for the sage grouse EIS. Habitat protection areas for this species of bird should be carefully

studied to retain compatibility with the private landowner’s business activities to avoid future conflicts. Livestock and

agriculture production are primary economic concerns in Oregon and land management opportunities on federal and state

lands must remain flexible to meet the needs of the community as well as the animal species that require special conditions.

All Both emc0179GB

429. Agriculture producers have participated in numerous federal and state plans and it is inconceivable that the varied plans and

assessments for protection of fish, plants, and animals are not sufficient for sage grouse protection. Currently there are

Resource Management Plans and grazing allotment plans that set goals and objectives to address environmental impacts of

activities with specific management objectives intended to improve the landscapes. The current strategies should be given

priority over developing new standards for the sage grouse EIS.

All Both emc0179GB

430. Reliable population estimates are needed for managers to make appropriate decisions and understand the effects of actions

on a particular site. In many areas, these data are lacking for specific local populations. In addition, scientific and professional

literature pertaining to sage-­‐grouse contains some scientific uncertainties (Connelly et al. 2000c, Schroeder et al.1999).

There is a lack of understanding of how sage-­‐grouse use some important components of their habitats at the landscape

level (Wambolt et al. 2002; PACWPL Policy Paper SG-02-02).

All Both emc0179GB

431. The basic principles of doing science require a good study design, rigorous data collection, and analysis. The BLM needs to

address the lack of data analysis within the agency’s database. In Oregon the inventories contained in the records at BLM

offices are decades old and do not reflect the current issues and newer methods used to make vegetation assessments.

Invasive plant management is not conducted in way that contributes to upward trends on the landscapes. The Standards of

Rangeland Health are not conducive to assessments that can be analyzed with assurances calculated through statistical

analysis. The EIS will remain vulnerable to protests if some level of confidence is not associated with the databases at the BLM 

Districts. Current databases should be thoroughly analyzed and monitoring programs should be developed or modified with 

the help of statisticians.

All Both emc0179GB

432. A major concern is the possible BLM reliance on professional judgment to determine if short-­‐ and long-­‐term habitat and

land resource objectives are being achieved or can be achieved. We urge use of rigorous studies for objective decision-­‐

making. Alternatives must be written based on knowledge and research in order to provide a level of confidence in the EIS.

Professional judgment should not be a surrogate for missing field-­‐work or inventories and the EIS should reflect this

important point.

All BLM emc0179GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-93

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

433. In closing, when you are making your decision on which issues should be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statements 

and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements I ask that you keep these key points in mind. 1) Historically when 

livestock grazing numbers were high sage grouse were abundant. 2) When predators gain protection, prey species decline.

3) Human development does not have nearly the negative impact on sage grouse populations as radical environmentalists 

would have you believe and development has even had a positive effect. 4) Livestock grazing is crucial for maintaining 

rangeland health and fire control.

All Both emc0208GB

434. There is nothing that the people have done that has affected the sage grouse populations, so for the government to blame the 

people for a problem that does not exist is childish and wrong. Prior to strong government regulations on grazing and 

predator control the birds population were so high at times they actually carried diseases that killed them off.

All Both emc0210GB

435. All that will become of this is thousands of people out of jobs, businesses out of business and another American heritage 

gone forever. The biggest and most important part of this is since the bird exceeds the population by a long shot the 

government is trying to change the ruling on the endangered species act to meet the criteria to list a species so they can get 

the sage grouse listed which is unconstitutional and morally wrong. The information needed to defeat this proposal has been 

provided to our local governments and BLM agencies to stop it in its tracks, all we need is them to support us. They two will 

be negatively impacted by this decision.

All Both emc0210GB

436. Another thing that has to happen is to make sure there are no permanent structures or major disturbances that are in what 

is left of there habitat. But you can put a lot of things in place to help but as long as the states still shoot them it would be like 

one step forward two step backwards.

All Both emc0211GB

437. While the subdivisions may be helpful to the planning process, one strategy for each sub-region cannot be effective. Within 

any sub-region there are highly variable climatic conditions, habitat types, threat factors, opportunity to address specific 

issues and different ongoing local efforts to conserve sage grouse. Each BLM land use planning unit should have its own site 

specific management guidance. Imposing broad scale guidance always results in the application of inappropriate guidance in 

some areas and perhaps inadequate guidance in other areas.

All BLM emc0212GB

438. B. The information indicates that BLM will "coordinate with other federal, state, and local government agencies in preparing 

the EISs." However, BLM goes on to identify the specific agencies they intend to "partner" with in this effort. Nowhere does 

BLM identify local Sage-Grouse working groups nor does BLM propose to involve these groups other than through the 

general public process. These local SageGrouse work groups possess the greatest knowledge oflocal conditions, 

opportunities and provide the most effective connection between land ownerships. The necessary level of trust and 

cooperation among land ownerships is best achieved through local efforts.

All Both emc0212GB

439. While BLM reports that they manage as much as 47 million acres of the of the remaining sagebrush habitat in the US. 

However, it is also true that private landowners, states and other federal agencies manage nearly the same amount. Clearly, 

there must be ongoing cooperation and coordination of management and conservation practice guidance

All BLM emc0212GB

440. E. The maps identifying priority habitat presumably delineate the on-ground application of conservation practice guidance 

identified in the EISs. However, the lines on these maps are not definable (surveyed) to a degree that actual on ground 

actions can be determined to be within or outside of actual PH. This effort must provide greater certainty as to where 

conservation practice guidance can be applied.

All Both emc0212GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-94 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

441. F. The BLM information proposes to pursue this effort primarily through their e-planning electronic planning system. While 

this approach may be convenient for BLM it is not so for many landowners. BLM must make a much greater effort to obtain 

input and secure meaningful review oftheir planning effort. The intent to rely on e-planning will not improve transparency but 

will make it more difficult. Most of the affected public does not have time to check the website daily to see if new information 

is available. Any and all time sensitive material must be made available via hard copy.

All BLM emc0212GB

442. G. The BLM is unclear on their habitat maps on when they are identitying a grassland, sage brush steppe and semi desert 

areas. On reviewing the maps, there are known areas that are large grasslands that are being identified as a sage brush steppe 

or a semi desert. BLM needs to identity the criteria they are using when they make the break between grassland and a sage 

brush steppe in their mapping units.

All Both emc0212GB

443. H. The maps that show the priority habitat, appears to have incorporated private lands that are adjacent to BLM lands that 

have sage grouse habitat. Many of the private lands are agricultural lands that are not and will not be sage brush! sage grouse 

habitat. Is the BLM going to re-fine their habitat boundaries and remove the private lands that are within the priority habitat 

boundaries?

All BLM emc0212GB

444. It is noted in the Preliminary Planning Criteria handout that Sage-Grouse habitat conservation measures will follow the 

Sage-Grouse Nationals Technical Team's "A Report on National Greater SageGrouse Conservation Measures (BLM 2011). 

It appears this was largely an internal document with some state fish and game staff as members in the development of the 

document. This document should be reviewed for the science that is being referenced and recommended by the land grant 

universities in the states that have sage-grouse populations and habitat.

All Both emc0212GB

445. Having reviewed the Planning strategy document on the website and the "Instruction Memorandum" No. 2012-043, it is 

more than a little clear that the "top down" directives from the national level to the loeal level is the "bass-ackward" way to 

accomplish meaningful improvements to sage-grouse habitat and sage grouse populations.

All Both emc0213GB

446. At Fish Springs Ranch our experience has been a good one of cooperation with our BlM District Office and the range cons 

that have been assigned to our area and we believe that the results from that experience are such that they can be duplicated

elsewhere provided that the solution is based in facts derived from the specific areas in question with management solutions 

that are site-speCific.

All Both emc0213GB

447. There seems to be little, if any, precedence for such a local, specific area solution based effort ever blooming in the thorny 

gardens of Washington, it must come from this state and our local District Offices of BlM. Every ranch, every allotment, 

every county every watershed is different unto itself and in the instance of public lands and multiple use of those lands one 

size does not frt all.

All Both emc0213GB

448. During the january 19, 2012 Sage Grouse scoping meeting held at the Lassen County Fair Grounds in Susanvill e, Califo rnia, 

we were concerned by the following: • Lack of documentation of why there is a decline of the Sage Grouse • The scale of the 

maps making it difficult to determine what areas coaJd be impacted • Why five-mile radius circles were used showing impact 

areas • No recording of comments from the public

All Both emc0214GB

449. Additionally, the Lassen MC would like to see the environmental document address how mitigation measures would impact 

the existing local community and recreation uses such as: • How proposed mitigation measures would impact existing State 

All Both emc0214GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-95

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and Federal land use plans? • The socio-economic impacts on existing local and regional uses caused by proposed mitigation 

measures? • If there are significant impacts on Sage Grouse because of motorized recreation? • How buffer zones are 

effective at each mitigation site and the impacts of buffer zones on existing uses?

450. Management of habitat for the greater sage-grouse occurs on a complex sagebrush dominated landscape with tremendous 

variability locally and range wide. It is ecologically impossible to regulate for improved sage-grouse performance with species 

specific regulatory measures

All Both emc0215GB

451. Local citizens working together to resolve local and site specific issues offers the best chance for success. Much work has 

already been accomplished at the local level in planning for vegetative enhancements. Agencies have failed to implement 

these planning efforts to date. Agencies should prioritize and implement these measures before increasing regulatory control 

that often paralyzes needed action.

All Both emc0215GB

452. Closing off land for a bird and not allowing any other discussions, especially at the local level is wrong at all levels. All Both emc0224GB

453. THEIR IS NO NEED TO INCORPORATE SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION INTO LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLANS 

[ 76FR 77008-77011

All Both emc0225GB

454. Fidelity has invested significant resources in sage-brush habitat research and enhancement. Below is a link to the Cooperative 

Sage-brush Initiative's progress report titled: "Market Based Approach for Restoring Rangelands and Critical Wildlife Habitat 

in the Sagebrush Biome:" http://sandcounty.neVuploads/Progress%20report%20Feb%202011.pdf.This project is on Fidelity's 

Seven Brothers East Ranch property located within the Buffalo BLM Field Office boundary; therefore, this project should be 

considered in BLM's analysis of science based conservation measures.

All Both emc0228GB, 

emc0093rm

455. The EISs should focus on habitat only and the public should be apprised that until a final listing decision is made, sage-grouse 

belong to the people of the state where the species resides; thus BLM can only control the habitat on BLM administered 

lands. Fidelity respectfully reminds BLM that their analysis should include BLM's multiple-use mandate and that any long term 

access stipulations should be based on peer-reviewed scientific data. In this regard, the scientific data needs to be 

transparent, and research conclusions need to be reproducible and comply with the Data Quality Act.

All Both emc0228GB, 

emc0093rm

456. BLM should also clarify that the EISs are evaluating conservation of sage-grouse habitat. The focus of the Planning EISs is only 

on management of the sage grouse habitat, not sage brush habitat, which should be made clear in order for affected parties 

to correctly interpret the affects ofthis policy.

All BLM emc0228GB, 

emc0093rm

457. The data and sources that led to the development of the measures should be fully transparent. All Both emc0228GB, 

emc0093rm

458. In IM 2012-044 BLM refers to Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH). The respective 

data can be accessed only on a BLM intra net site. The data and maps depicting PPH and PGH should be readily available and 

members of the public who have limited or no access to the internet should be able to easily access this information.

All Both emc0228GB, 

emc0093rm

459. We are submitting these comments for consideration during the scoping process for the Western Region Sage Grouse EIS. 

Economics, Livestock Grazing, Vegetation management, land resource inventory development, sage grouse depredation, and 

population census are issues that need to be assessed in the EIS and all topics need to be considered within the context of 

public lands and BLM should refrain from speculating about private land uses.

All Both emc0159GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-96 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

460. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) recognizes that land use planners and managers may need to consider 

recommendations for sage grouse management within the context of social- ‐economic issues of the respective 

governmental bodies. The intent of the Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation plan (ODFW) is to inform decision-­‐makers 

regarding the biological consequences of various actions on sage-­‐grouse, but not to dictate land management decision. 

Also, added as guidance the Oregon Plan is not intended to exclude any users or activities or infringe on legally defined 

private property rights; but serves to provide solutions to problems and issues that affect sage-­‐grouse and the functionality 

of sagebrush communities. With the development of the ODFW plan it seems redundant for the BLM to write another plan. 

We would like the EIS to address the adequacy of that plan to serve as a valid reference for the Western Region EIS.

All BLM emc0159GB

461. The economic and social values of the Western Region ranching community are important considerations that must be 

studied and taken into account for the sage grouse EIS. Habitat protection areas for this species of bird should be carefully

studied to retain compatibility with the private landowner’s business activities to avoid future conflicts. Livestock and 

agriculture production are primary economic concerns in Oregon and land management opportunities on federal and state 

lands must remain flexible to meet the needs of the community as well as the animal species that require special conditions.

All Both emc0159GB

462. Agriculture producers have participated in numerous federal and state plans and it is inconceivable that the varied plans and

assessments for protection of fish, plants, and animals are not sufficient for sage grouse protection. Currently there are 

Resource Management Plans and grazing allotment plans that set goals and objectives to address environmental impacts of 

activities with specific management objectives intended to improve the landscapes. The current strategies should be given 

priority over developing new standards for the sage grouse EIS.

All Both emc0159GB

463. The basic principles of doing science require a good study design, rigorous data collection, and analysis. The BLM needs to 

address the lack of data analysis within the agency’s database. In Oregon the inventories contained in the records at BLM 

offices are decades old and do not reflect the current issues and newer methods used to make vegetation assessments. 

Invasive plant management is not conducted in way that contributes to upward trends on the landscapes. The Standards of 

Rangeland Health are not conducive to assessments that can be analyzed with assurances calculated through statistical 

analysis. The EIS will remain vulnerable to protests if some level of confidence is not associated with the databases at the BLM 

Districts. Current databases should be thoroughly analyzed and monitoring programs should be developed or modified with 

the help of statisticians.

All BLM emc0159GB

464. A major concern is the possible BLM reliance on professional judgment to determine if short-­‐ and long-­‐term habitat and 

land resource objectives are being achieved or can be achieved. We urge use of rigorous studies for objective decision-­‐

making. Alternatives must be written based on knowledge and research in order to provide a level of confidence in the EIS. 

Professional judgment should not be a surrogate for missing field-­‐work or inventories and the EIS should reflect this 

important point.

All BLM emc0159GB

465. We are submitting these comments for consideration during the scoping process for the Western Region Sage Grouse EIS. 

Economics, Livestock Grazing, Vegetation management, land resource inventory development, sage grouse depredation, and 

population census are issues that need to be assessed in the EIS and all topics need to be considered within the context of 

public lands and BLM should refrain from speculating about private land uses.

All Both emc0222GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-97

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

466. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) recognizes that land use planners and managers may need to consider 

recommendations for sage grouse management within the context of social- ‐economic issues of the respective 

governmental bodies. The intent of the Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation plan (ODFW) is to inform decision-­‐makers 

regarding the biological consequences of various actions on sage-­‐grouse, but not to dictate land management decision. 

Also, added as guidance the Oregon Plan is not intended to exclude any users or activities or infringe on legally defined 

private property rights; but serves to provide solutions to problems and issues that affect sage-­‐grouse and the functionality 

of sagebrush communities. With the development of the ODFW plan it seems redundant for the BLM to write another plan. 

We would like the EIS to address the adequacy of that plan to serve as a valid reference for the Western Region EIS.

All BLM emc0222GB

467. The economic and social values of the Western Region ranching community are important considerations that must be 

studied and taken into account for the sage grouse EIS. Habitat protection areas for this species of bird should be carefully

studied to retain compatibility with the private landowner’s business activities to avoid future conflicts. Livestock and 

agriculture production are primary economic concerns in Oregon and land management opportunities on federal and state 

lands must remain flexible to meet the needs of the community as well as the animal species that require special conditions.

All Both emc0222GB

468. Agriculture producers have participated in numerous federal and state plans and it is inconceivable that the varied plans and

assessments for protection of fish, plants, and animals are not sufficient for sage grouse protection. Currently there are 

Resource Management Plans and grazing allotment plans that set goals and objectives to address environmental impacts of 

activities with specific management objectives intended to improve the landscapes. The current strategies should be given 

priority over developing new standards for the sage grouse EIS.

All Both emc0222GB

469. The basic principles of doing science require a good study design, rigorous data collection, and analysis. The BLM needs to 

address the lack of data analysis within the agency’s database. In Oregon the inventories contained in the records at BLM 

offices are decades old and do not reflect the current issues and newer methods used to make vegetation assessments. 

Invasive plant management is not conducted in way that contributes to upward trends on the landscapes. The Standards of 

Rangeland Health are not conducive to assessments that can be analyzed with assurances calculated through statistical 

analysis. The EIS will remain vulnerable to protests if some level of confidence is not associated with the databases at the BLM 

Districts. Current databases should be thoroughly analyzed and monitoring programs should be developed or modified with 

the help of statisticians.

All BLM emc0222GB

470. A major concern is the possible BLM reliance on professional judgment to determine if short-­‐ and long-­‐term habitat and 

land resource objectives are being achieved or can be achieved. We urge use of rigorous studies for objective decision-­‐

making. Alternatives must be written based on knowledge and research in order to provide a level of confidence in the EIS. 

Professional judgment should not be a surrogate for missing field-­‐work or inventories and the EIS should reflect this 

important point.

All BLM emc0222GB

471. We are submitting these comments for consideration during the scoping process for the Western Region Sage Grouse EIS. 

Economics, Livestock Grazing, Vegetation management, land resource inventory development, sage grouse depredation, and 

population census are issues that need to be assessed in the EIS and all topics need to be considered within the context of 

public lands and BLM should refrain from speculating about private land uses.

All Both emc0209GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-98 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

472. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) recognizes that land use planners and managers may need to consider 

recommendations for sage grouse management within the context of social- ‐economic issues of the respective 

governmental bodies. The intent of the Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation plan (ODFW) is to inform decision-­‐makers 

regarding the biological consequences of various actions on sage-­‐grouse, but not to dictate land management decision. 

Also, added as guidance the Oregon Plan is not intended to exclude any users or activities or infringe on legally defined 

private property rights; but serves to provide solutions to problems and issues that affect sage-­‐grouse and the functionality 

of sagebrush communities. With the development of the ODFW plan it seems redundant for the BLM to write another plan. 

We would like the EIS to address the adequacy of that plan to serve as a valid reference for the Western Region EIS.

All BLM emc0209GB

473. The economic and social values of the Western Region ranching community are important considerations that must be 

studied and taken into account for the sage grouse EIS. Habitat protection areas for this species of bird should be carefully 

studied to retain compatibility with the private landowner’s business activities to avoid future conflicts. Livestock and 

agriculture production are primary economic concerns in Oregon and land management opportunities on federal and state 

lands must remain flexible to meet the needs of the community as well as the animal species that require special conditions.

All Both emc0209GB

474. Agriculture producers have participated in numerous federal and state plans and it is inconceivable that the varied plans and

assessments for protection of fish, plants, and animals are not sufficient for sage grouse protection. Currently there are 

Resource Management Plans and grazing allotment plans that set goals and objectives to address environmental impacts of 

activities with specific management objectives intended to improve the landscapes. The current strategies should be given 

priority over developing new standards for the sage grouse EIS.

All Both emc0209GB

475. The basic principles of doing science require a good study design, rigorous data collection, and analysis. The BLM needs to 

address the lack of data analysis within the agency’s database. In Oregon the inventories contained in the records at BLM 

offices are decades old and do not reflect the current issues and newer methods used to make vegetation assessments. 

Invasive plant management is not conducted in way that contributes to upward trends on the landscapes. The Standards of 

Rangeland Health are not conducive to assessments that can be analyzed with assurances calculated through statistical 

analysis. The EIS will remain vulnerable to protests if some level of confidence is not associated with the databases at the BLM 

Districts. Current databases should be thoroughly analyzed and monitoring programs should be developed or modified with 

the help of statisticians.

All BLM emc0209GB

476. A major concern is the possible BLM reliance on professional judgment to determine if short-­‐ and long-­‐term habitat and 

land resource objectives are being achieved or can be achieved. We urge use of rigorous studies for objective decision-­‐

making. Alternatives must be written based on knowledge and research in order to provide a level of confidence in the EIS. 

Professional judgment should not be a surrogate for missing field-­‐work or inventories and the EIS should reflect this 

important point.

All Both emc0209GB

477. Please make sure the current information is correct, accurate and up to date before making uniformed decisions. Listing the 

sage grouse on the endangered species list will greatly affect and impact numerous industries and badly needed jobs, which 

in turn will probably adversely affect the sage grouse issue and problem in which we are trying to fix.

All Both emc0229GB

478. The IM Memo repeatedly points out the "State Wildlife Agency" as the important agency to talk to and get approval form for All Both emc0233GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-99

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

habitat projects. State Departments of Agriculture and the Sage Grouse working groups which should include local 

government have the tools to improve management on the ground which state wildlife agencies are already part of.

479. Federal agencies shall cooperate with state agencies, local governments and those allowed by agency actions to monitor the 

progress of sage grouse to remove the species from the endangered species listing.

All Both emc0233GB

480. The current scope of "Preliminary Issues" is incomplete. It should be expanded to include control of feral (aka "wild") horses 

and birds of prey. Both feral horses and birds of prey are protected under legislation from 1971 and 1972 respectively. These

two laws favor particular species or group of species without regard to the impact of the protected species on other native 

species such as the sage grouse.

All Both emc0216GB

481. I oppose BLM's intent to prepare an EIS to incorporate Greater Sage Grouse conservation measures into federal land use 

plans. I base this mainly on the basis that the Greater Sage Grouse is not legally qualified, or even close to being legally 

qualified to be listed as endangered. Using USF&WS findings that 5,000 birds is the minimum effective population determined 

to keep the bird from extinction. The USF&WS estimates there are 535,000 birds region wide, by their own admission they 

are difficult to count and there may be substantially more birds.

All Both emc0249GB

482. We would appreciate being part of any stakeholder or Sage Grouse conservation project team if possible so we can express 

our interests in the planning of any projects that will affect Outback's operations.

All Both emc0235GB

483. It is clear that both the BLM and the USFS are committed to consulting with State, local and tribal governments prior to 

implementing any changes to land management plans. We hope the same courtesy will be extended to other stakeholders as 

well.

All Both emc0324GB

484. We sincerely hope the agencies will explore seasonal closures for defined, specific areas before resorting to widespread 

closures affecting thousands and perhaps millions of acres of land for extended periods of time. Many times, less is better if 

done in a targeted way.

All Both emc0324GB

485. We appreciate the massive task before the agencies as they evaluate numerous land management plans in areas covering ten 

western states. We trust this effort will be done in a deliberate fashion with ample dialog with all those interested and 

potentially affected by the decisions which will come as a result of this process

All Both emc0324GB

486. To rush the process to meet an arbitrary deadline will only lead to errors of judgment and failure to adequately engage with 

all interested stakeholders will only lead to distrust of those responsible for the stewardship of our federal lands.

All Both emc0324GB

487. In fact, the state strongly asserts that a decision to list sage-grouse range-wide, but especially in Utah, would be a major 

setback to current conservation management activities.

All Both emc0337GB

488. However, the state would respectfully suggest that the BLM Resource Management Plan process is cumbersome to initiate, 

unwieldy to operate, and ultimately unable to respond to the needs of any species in an efficient manner.

All Both emc0337GB

489. In the interim, BLM has ignored all the work done in Utah in favor of interim management directives which stand the idea of 

cooperation on its head. Further, the BLM intends to propose making these coercive restrictions permanent as one of the 

alternatives in the ErS. In addition, the BLM and Forest Service are already hard at work proposing mechanisms to assure that 

protections for sage grouse are identical range-wide, which eftort may conflict directly with the efforts of the state, BLM,

Forest Service and others to promote locally based solutions in a cooperative manner

All Both emc0337GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-100 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

490. The BLM must not fall into the false planning trap of assuming that the best thing for sage-grouse, or any other species, is to 

place the lands off -limits to any or all activities.

All BLM emc0337GB

491. Only those stipulations and conditions created as part of a joint effort among all parties to satisfy the needs of the sage 

grouse on a statewide basis should be considered, and considered as common to all the alternatives in the EIS analysis

All Both emc0337GB

492. Finally, in addition to these economic calculations, the state requests that the BLM detennine and consider the opinions of 

those who work the land, or otherwise derive their living from the lands and resources in rural Utah. Many of them are 

involved in the protection of the sage grouse, because they care, and BLM's decisions must not interfere with their ability to 

do so. Many rural Utah residents work in the energy and recreational industries, and their opinionshould be part ofthe EIS 

process, as much or more so than consideration of the opinion of the FWS.

All Both emc0337GB

493. Since the sage-grouse listing petitions were filed in 2004, countless measures have been employed by the energy industry, 

private landowners and federal and state management agencies to develop scientific data monitoring, collection and analysis 

tools for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the sage-grouse. As such, numerous conservation programs have been in 

place for several years, many in which the BLM has been and continues to be involved. These have resulted in an 

unprecedented comprehensive effort to avoid the pitfalls of listing the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act. BLM 

should recognize and build on these programs.

All BLM emc0166GB, 

emc0031RM

494. EOG urges the BLM to consider the development of a wide ranging conservation strategy for sage-grouse and sage-grouse 

habitat that has already been undertaken by western states through the Western Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies 

("WAFWA"), in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), BLM and Forest Service are cooperating agencies. As a

result of these efforts, to date nine states have finalized conservation plans and local working groups are being established to 

carry out these plans and to monitor their effectiveness. The remaining states are also working toward formulating and 

finalizing their conservation plans.

All BLM emc0166GB, 

emc0031RM

495. Finally, the BLM should use this opportunity to address the concerns expressed by Judge D. Lynn Winmill of the United

States District Court for the District of Idaho in the case entitled Western Watershed Project v. Ken Salazar, Case No. 

08-CV-516-DLW, Memorandum Decision and Order (D. Id. Sept. 28, 2011 ). In the referenced case, the court determined 

that the BLM had not adequately analyzed potential impacts to sage-grouse population from both livestock grazingand oil and 

gas development on public lands. As a result of this decision, with which EOG disagrees and has intervened in a lawsuit in 

order to protect its rights, the BLM's RMPs across much of the western United States risk additional challenge from plaintiff 

organizations such as the Western Watershed Project. Indeed, the Western Watershed Project has already indicated its

intent to file litigation against the BLM challenging other resource management plans such as with the recently released Draft 

Resource Management Plan for the Lander Resource Area in Wyoming. BLM should take the opportunity to correct any 

alleged deficiencies perceived by a court in Idaho to ensure that future litigation is less likely to succeed.

All BLM emc0166GB, 

emc0031RM

496. To the extent possible, the BLM should utilize the data collected by the Wyoming State Office for the proposed, but now 

apparently abandoned, Wyoming specific amendment to the RMPs within the State of Wyoming. This process was initiated 

in May of 2010 and was, reportedly, nearing completion prior to the announcement of the national sage-grouse RMP

amendments. See Notice of Intent, 75 Fed. Reg. 30054 (May 28, 2010). The BLM in Wyoming had already prepared an 

Analysis of the Management Situation and other important data that can be utilized as part of this larger effort. See Summary 

All BLM emc0166GB, 

emc0031RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-101

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of Scoping Comments (Jan. 19, 2011); Analysis ofthe Management Situation (August 2011).

497. The BLM must specifically incorporate and adopt to the maximum extent possible the sage-grouse conservation measures 

currently in place and utilized in Wyoming. The Wyoming sage-grouse Implementation Team and the Governor of Wyoming

carefully developed the Core Area policy for sage-grouse based on the best scientific information available and in 

cooperation with operators and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department ("WGFD"). It is inappropriate toincrease these 

restrictions in the BLM Land Use Plan. EOG encourages the BLM to modify the sage-grouse stipulations such that they are 

consistent with Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5. This will ensure consistent management of sage-grouse and habitat 

throughout Wyoming and illustrate the State of Wyoming and the BLM are dedicated to protecting and preserving 

sagegrouse to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act.

All Both emc0166GB, 

emc0031RM

498. History has shown that the previous practices of closing tracts of land to all use to preserve a species has ended drastically 

for all involved, especially the species

All Both emc0241GB

499. A broad spectrum solution will not solve this problem so it should be tailored to fit each allotment and each population of 

sage grouse

All Both emc0241GB

500. I am not certain why the sage grouse have decreased in numbers but some factors should be considered: more predators, 

disease, housing development, and a decrease in cattle and sheep numbers.

All Both emc0252GB

501. It would be my thought that studies should be made of existing thriving sage grouse populations along with studies of past 

history. These studies should be made by unbiased persons if any such people can be found.

All Both emc0252GB

502. Cliff Gardner of Ruby Valley, NV has collected a lot of data on sage grouse history. His findings should be given careful 

consideration

All Both emc0252GB

503. If these nationally designated areas contain 5,000 or more sage-grouse and the populations have been maintained or 

increased over time, then the greater sage-grouse does not legally qualify for listing under the ESA based upon its existence 

and trend in these nationally designated areas alone, and there is no need to implement additional conservation measures 

anywhere else in the bird’s occupied range. In contrast, if greater sage-grouse populations have declined in these nationally 

designated areas, like they have elsewhere in their currently occupied range, then the entire line of reasoning regarding the 

factors responsible for their decline must be reevaluated. If sage-grouse populations have declined in these nationally 

designated areas despite the regulatory mechanisms that constrain their use, all recommendations to implement similar

regulatory restrictions across vast additional portions of the species range need to be rejected entirely. Instead, management 

practices that were in place when greater sagegrouse populations dramatically increased from the mid 1800s to early 1900s 

need to be identified and implemented again, including increased livestock grazing to reduce wildfire fuel loads, and 

concerted predator control.

All Both emc0256GB

504. 6) Protecting the Sage Grouse habitat is placing protection of the entirety of flora and fauna that naturally inhabit the terrain. 

Man is an inclusion in the circle of life of these high deserts. Road density must stay as it is to facilitate management be it weed 

pulling parties, fire suppression, hunters, gatherers or river goers. Single specie’s habitat protection exclusive to its 

surroundings is not management. Agencies and citizens must address the vast specie realm. Not taking into consideration all 

species including man’s historical comings and goings; omitting one species or another will not represent the full cycle of life 

All Both emc0257GB 

emc0104rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-102 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and this earth’s environment as even man’s footprints represent life in the high desert.

505. We support BLM's commitment to ensure that all data used in this process complies with the principles of the Information 

Quality Act of 2000.

All BLM emc0242GB, 

emc0097RM

506. Data from state wildlife management agencies, state departments of agriculture, university extension services and local sage 

grouse working groups should be used to the greatest extent possible in this effort.

All Both emc0242GB

507. Significant sage grouse habitat overlaps with BLM special designations. The plan amendment process must include a 

No-Action alternative, which recognizes the fact that federal land use plans contain existing direct and indirect protections 

of sage-grouse habitat (including wilderness areas, national parks and monuments, wilderness study areas, areas of critical 

environmental concern, special recreation management areas, roadless areas, wild and scenic rivers, NSO areas and others). 

The EIS must examine the extent to which such existing protections, or modification of such protections, can accomplish the 

purpose and need for the plan amendments.

All Both emc0242GB

508. We request that the land use plan amendments be single-purpose; limited solely to those associated with sage grouse habitat 

conservation.

All Both emc0242GB

509. The BLM has a multiple use mandate under FLPMA. The existing RMPs were developed after many years of analysis and 

public input, resulting in land use plans that struck an acceptable balance between multiple uses. This latest effort has the 

potential to shift that balance in a manner that is detrimental to energy development, grazing, fuel and vegetation 

management) mineral development and recreation. Any selected alternative must minimize the restrictions placed on these 

legitimate and important land uses. We encourage the BLM to follow through on its commitment to protect valid, existing 

rights; such as grazing and energy leases and RS 2477 access rights.

All Both emc0242GB

510. We encourage the BLM to look not only at habitat availability) but also habitat suitability given the energy and mineral 

potential and other multiple use potential of preliminary priority sage grouse habitat areas. Mineral Potential and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development studies should be used to make those habitat mapping determinations.

All Both emc0242GB

511. The State of Utah is in the process of completing its sage grouse plan and will be establishing standards that make more sense 

for Utah.

All Both emc0242GB

512. The criterion to ensure compliance with air quality laws and to include consideration of climate change seems to be beyond 

the scope of the sage grouse plan amendments.

All Both emc0242GB

513. The criteria to utilize state game and fish agency date and expertise should be expanded to state that the RMP amendments 

will recognize the State's responsibility and authority to manage wildlife and consider adoption of the state sage grouse plan 

for use on BLM and Forest lands as an alternative.

All Both emc0242GB

514. An additional planning criterion should be added that requires the RMP amendments to incorporate management decisions 

brought forward from existing planning documents whenever possible.

All Both emc0242GB

515. Air Quality and Climate Change should not be a planning issue during this process. The RMP amendments should focus only 

on the analysis of sage grouse habitat protection and refrain from revising other elements of existing RMPs.

All Both emc0242GB

516. The BLM should follow through on its commitment to base the land use plan amendments on the principles of adaptive 

management and establish a framework for ensuring that this occurs.

All Both emc0242GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-103

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

517. The BLM should consider the efforts of local sage grouse working groups and site specific research in making plans for 

specific areas.

All Both emc0242GB

518. The BLM should provide for management flexibility in order to reduce the need to prepare additional land use plan 

amendments in the future and allow for land managers to use common sense given site specific conditions. RMP amendments 

must not become so prescriptive that incorporation of new science and data into management of sagebrush habitats would 

be restricted absent new planning efforts.

All Both emc0242GB

519. The plan amendments should contain clear definitions oftenns and an explanation of how preliminary priority habitat and 

preliminary general habitat locations were determined.

All Both emc0242GB

520. The RMP amendments should include flexibility or exemptions for emergency circumstances. All Both emc0242GB

521. Inflexible standards should be avoided. Standards should be based on the recommendations of the local sage grouse working 

groups.

All Both emc0242GB

522. Mitigation measures employed by the BLM and land users in the past to protect sage grouse should be discussed in the RMP 

amendments. Future acceptable mitigation measures and the long term responsibility for monitoring must be identified. The 

funding of sage grouse research should be considered an acceptable means of mitigation. So should the restoration of 

degraded habitat. The BLM should consider the establishment of a mitigation program that project proponents may 

voluntarily use to facilitate the allocation and management of mitigation dollars to fund sage grouse habitat improvement 

projects.

All Both emc0242GB

523. The BLM should consider methods of incentivizing development outside of priority habitat areas. All Both emc0242GB

524. The plan amendments will need to specify which use or user will have priority to create new disturbances within habitat 

areas. The first-come, first-served approach may not be in the long-term public interest.

All Both emc0242GB

525. The plan amendments will need to specify whether surface disturbance limitations will include the existing disturbance or 

just new disturbance after the effective date of the amendments.

All Both emc0242GB

526. The plan amendment process must recognize that it is not always practical to consolidate or group anthropogenic features 

on a landscape due to geologic, topographic and other conditions.

All Both emc0242GB

527. Time of day and seasonal restrictions should be based on local conditions as analyzed by local sage grouse working groups, 

agriculture officials and wildlife agencies.

All Both emc0242GB

528. Land uses that do not conflict with sage grouse management should not be unnecessarily restricted. One example is 

underground mining of oil shale or other natural resources.

All Both emc0242GB

529. The BLM must ensure that state fish and game agency management goals for sage grouse do not become the sole driver for 

resource use allocations.

All Both emc0242GB

530. The BLM should provide a mechanism for reporting to the public on field office projects benefitting sage grouse and 

sagebrush habitat.

All Both emc0242GB

531. The BLM should provide a mechanism and criteria for exceptions, waivers and modifications to the conservation measures 

when circumstances warrant.

All Both emc0242GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-104 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

532. I am glad BLM is getting serious about protecting sage grouse but the report by the sage grouse national technical team 

should be a living document that can be amended as new science facts are brought forward.

All Both cfc0006RM

533. But I also state that as the above points refer to priority habitat (pages 7 and 8). There are loopholes even in the "priority" 

objectives that can weaken priority conditions and the loopholes seem to feed additional loopholed generalities in the 

sub-objectives (pages 9 & 10) to general sage-grouse habitat. For example, "regardless of ownership" can present conflict 

with "(subject to valid existing rights)" (page 8) and "large-scale disturbances will not be permitted within priority areas" 

(page 8) loses its uniqueness against the first 2 lines of page 9. As well, the likelihood of finding "suitable" (priority quality?) 

substitute buffers has no guarantee.

All Both cfc0007RM

534. Of concern also is the checkerboard tendency to allow greater than 3% surface acreage disturbance in several one-mile 

sections within a priority area and quickly loosing track of disturbance realities, to the sage-grouse, overtrusting that the 

total acres of disturbance to an entire priority habitat area stays at under 3%.

All Both cfc0007RM

535. Given so many concerns and notice of ineffective public lands management practices plus incessant pressures and 

preferences promised to O/G businesses or demanded by them, and given the incessant BLM budget deficiencies that 

weaken first and most persistently, the regulation and monitoring central to the report's New Paradigm and given the 

sage-grouse's perticular survival reliance on priority sagebrush habitat and the long recovery time of damaged or over weed 

sagebrush habitat (a time of too many grouse life cycles for population survival), and given that in the Northwest Colorado 

district sage grouse EIS area, the two largest of 7 priority sagebrush habitats of the Little Snake Resource Acea (see LSRA 

2011 ROD, maps 2, 4 and 5) between Maybell and Craig N and S of US 40 and in intense coal extraction area 5 of US 40 and 

W of Hamilton lie in the Little Snake's heaviest public/private land status mixes the success of the New Paradigm in 

Northwest Colorado is unlikely, very unlikely.

All Both cfc0007RM

536. Thus, one recommendation I make strongly is that every conceivable loophole in pages 6-16 of the Team's Report be 

individually pulled from text and addressed in writing and quantifiable resopnse. The Team's work has much imporved on 

more general management species plans, but I submit that the Team, not just people like me knows it does not improve 

enough, and that the grouse's survival will always be weakened by endless old and new compromises.

All Both cfc0007RM

537. The Nevada Wilderness Project asks that the agencies provide an opportunity for organizations like ours to work as 

partners in the identification and establishment of the administratively protected areas.

All Both emc0243GB

538. and that these areas, when designated, provide clear and specific management requirements that will adequately manage, 

reduce or eliminate development and landuse activities that threaten the persistence of sage-grouse on the landscape.

All Both emc0243GB

539. The this reason Monsanto has a particular vested interest in this issue and believes that the BLM through appropriate land 

management can insure that populations of greater sage grouse can be maintained or increased while providing for other 

essential multiple use development activities

All Both emc0400GB

540. The common goal of these efforts has been to avoid a formal listing of the bird under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This 

goal is certainly worthwhile since the act of listing is nearly always accompanied by difficult and onerous restrictions that 

often restrict or seriously impede many important legal and worthwhile activities. I support and encourage BLM's efforts to 

develop plans and actions that can help avoid a listing

All Both emc0400GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-105

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

541. However as the BLM proceeds with efforts to prepare an EIS to incorporate conservations measures into RMP's and LMP's, 

it should exercise caution to make sure that the measures taken do not provide an antidote that is more lethal than the 

listing poison it is intended to preclude.

All Both emc0400GB

542. While the IM indicates that these designations have been identified in conjunction with state wildlife agencies, the process 

has had very limited public input and therefore is missing a very important component.

All Both emc0400GB

543. It is important that maps have been field verified and are not solely the product of an office exercise, having been produced

from large scale aerial photos or maps

All Both emc0400GB

544. The maps I have reviewed are of relatively low resolution scale making specific detail on the ground difficult to access. All Both emc0440GB

545. The BLM should insure that conservation measures developed based on these areas, provide a field verification step. Any and 

all future project or activity proponents should be provided a mechanism allowing them to retain professional experts to 

perform approved field reviews of these designated areas. If C[) these reviews indicate that the previously determined 

habitat designations are flawed, 13L f-\.- then this finding should be fairly and adequately considered when evaluating the ~}J

proposed projects by adjusting or amending those habitat designations. BLM needs to provide mechanisms that will allow 

these adjustments without the need for a formal amendment to the respective LMP or RMP. This is a vital aspect in the 

process to insure that lands essential for sage grouse success are adequately protected while those truly "not" essential can 

be made available for other important multiple use activities

All BLM emc0400GB

546. As stated I support BLM's effort to implement measures that will assist in maintaining and increasing Sage Grouse 

populations and thus avoid listing under the ESA

All BLM emc0400GB

547. We fimlly believe the continued preservation of Sage Grouse to be of prime importance to prevent its listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) but believe that this can be accomplished successfully without undue burdens that could 

inhibit the ability of recreation. grazing and industry to continue to operate on federal lands and to extract and or use our 

natural resources to the benefit of the American people and the continued economic viability of our citizens and local 

businesses.~

All Both emc0410GB

548. We acknowledge that the Sage Grouse Management Plan calls for the creation of a programmatic EIS (PElS) to analyze broad 

alternative strategies to protect greater sage-grouse habitat. West-wide. Ho\.vever we would urge BLM and the FS to reject 

a strategy which mandates implementation of a single broad National Policy to be followed on a local basis. We believe the

more effective course would be to use the PElS as a guideline to conduct local analyses. This approach can consider and apply 

management techniques for unique habitat conditions and management considerations for each local area, in lieu of a 

"one-size-fits-all" analysis. Such a "one-sizc-fits-all" analysis. Which purports to be adequate for the entire greater 

sage-grouse population. Is in fact an ineffective way and possibly a destructive way to analyze alternatives for habitat and 

population enhancement. This type of analysis only belabors the process and hinders present and future on-the-ground 

conservation efforts to protect greater sage-grouse habitat.

All Both emc0410GB

549. Research conducted in the Great Basin has indicated that the greater sage-grouse should be managed according to the needs 

of individual populations and that range-wide measures are not appropriate (Launchbaugh. et al. 2007). According to Stiver 

et al. (2006), "strategies for addressing potential etTcds of grazing on greater sage-grouse must be devcloped at the regio!1;ll.

All Both emc0410GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-106 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and perhaps more effectively, local levels (and coordinated regionally)." It would thus be impractical. inetTective. and 

detrimental to the greater sage-grouse for the agencies to ignore variations between individual populations by conducting a 

NEPA analysis beyond its cumulatin: impact zone.

550. BLM IM 2012-043 delineates greater sage-grouse areas as Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) areas and Preliminary General 

Habitat areas. And provides different management criteria for each. There appears to have been no public input into these 

designations.

All Both emc0410GB

551. We submit that the Admlnlstrallve Procedures Act (APA) reqUires that publIc notice and opportumty tor publIc comment 

should be provided before special protection areas can be designated on federal lands. We further submit that the 

designation process would greatly benefit from public input. PPH. As designated by BLM, should be provided to the public for 

comment as part of this NOI.

All Both emc0410GB

552. We also recommend that equal consideration be given to the comments and recommendation of the American Farm 

Bureau. The Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other agricultural organizations whose 

members we consider as subject matter experts in the land they steward. They have a high level of working knowledge of 

these lands in their areas and a first-hand knowledge of its history. We believe this data will be priceless to the lead agency 

in this endeavor

All Both emc0410GB

553. Prairie Hills Audubon Society is a chapter of the National Audubon Society located in western SD. We support explicit 

goals/objectives, and strict standards or rules in your Resource Management Plans, so as to insure recovery of the greater 

sage grouse.

All Both emc0375GB

554. We also want sufficient monitoring. All Both emc0375GB

555. In the case of Sage Grouse, and considering that it was the Department of Interiors policy regarding the poisoning of 

Mormon Crickets that probably caused the largest die off of Sage Grouse, that a program be developed to raise Sage Grouse 

in pens and release them to the wild

All Both emc0245GB, 

emc0099RM

556. Through enhanced weed control, predator control, and improved fire management (fuels reduction, green striping, rapid 

and aggressive responses to new starts) our rangelands will begin to heal and provide the necessary habitat for the 

sage‐grouse population to grow.

All Both emc0247GB

557. Conservation programs that have been implemented such as the Sage‐Grouse Initiative through NRCS should be given a 

chance to build the partnerships that will create bridges between private and public rangelands and their proper 

management. Imposing additional regulatory burdens on livestock grazers and the BLM field people who are already 

drowning in paperwork would be detrimental.

All Both emc0247GB

558. Given the success of the local working group model to address other issues. we believe that strategies for protecting the 

greater sage grouse and its habitat are best designed and implemented in that farum. The local working groupe are the ideal 

vehicle to hring together all interested stakeholders to develop community based solutions in response to unique conditiorts

within the context of the regional ef-fort. Ecosystems occupied by greater sage-grouse poputations vary and should bc 

managed not by a one-size-fits-all approach but through an approach that allows land managers and local stake holders to 

collaborate on practices that benefit individual popul ations

All Both fxc0006GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-107

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

559. We also believe that local working group$ could provide a forum for the introduction, evaluation and closely controlled 

rnonitoring of innovative practices. We contend that the species will be befter served through methods designed to teach 

population targets rflther than pro"rcriptive measures which may or may not achieve the desired results but whose 

implementation is demanded regardless of its efficacy

All Both fxc0006GB

560. Furlher, we believe that each industry, indeed each project. should bear the cost of the mitigation it requires. Conversely, 

each inclustry or project that improves habitat or increases pcpulation should be rewarded with additional opportunities to 

utilize resources. For example, if a developer plans to coflstruct wind rurbine generation which will negatively impact the 

sage grouse population, those impacts could be offset by the concurrent construction of a bio-fuels generation facility which 

utilizes sustainable pinyon andjuniper harvesting. In contrast, a proposed project should not be permitted to offset its 

impacts by eliminatirrg another existing use unlesr the affected user is justly compensated. For instance. mitigation rneasures 

for a wind farm should nst include relocatiorr of an existing power line unless the wind farm developet absorbs the 

constructiort costs of the new line. including permitting arrd design, and demolition cost$ of the existing line.

All Both fxc0006GB

561. The EISs and SHISs should analyze and disclose howgreater Eage-grouse manageffent will impact all estahlished multipl.e uses 

in existirtg land use plarrs. Any RMP/LMP amendment to address greater sage-grou$e corrservalion should include flexibility 

to allow for altemative actiorts. the absence of which could actually prevent conservation instead of enhancing the species 

and habitat.

All Both fxc0006GB

562. All decisions should be directly addresned by the lead agerrcy and based on independently verified data All Both fxc0006GB

563. Alternatives which are the least restrictive to multiple-use adtiviti€s should be given top priority. All Both fxc0006GB

564. Scheduling or restricting the timing of multiple-use activities should be flexible to account for unusual weather corrditions or 

variatiorrs in sage groufi€ occupancy. Adherence to rigid dates or times of day should hc tcmpered by on-the-gror.rnd 

observatiorrs and monitoriTlg.

All Both fxc0006GB

565. The NOI also states: "The BLM and FS wilt con-qider a rilnge of reasonable alternatives. Irrcluding appropriate management 

prcscriptiorrs that focus on the relativc values of resources while contributing to the conservation of the greatef Sage-grouse 

and sage-groune habitat." Altematives should he developed and adopted according to irnpacts on other multiple uses. Irt

marrageffient decisions, flexibility for ease-hy-case decisions will allow modifications a$ needed.

All Both fxc0006GB

566. Instructional Mcmorandum 2012-043 designates sage grouse habitat as either Preliminary Priority Habitat or Preliminary 

General Habitat. We have been unable to firtd record of the solicitatiorr of public comment into these designations. White 

we agree that changes irr mafiagement practices in some arefls are more likely to result in sigriificant habitat improvementr

than others, data from both state and Jocal sources should be irrcorporated. Criteria for therespective designations should 

he clearly defined prior to evaluation. Priority rnapping artd designations should only include areal that are actually used by 

sage grouse.

All Both fxc0006GB

567. We support [he contention af the Elko County Commissioil that the absence of the required public comment period 

necessitate$ suspension of the irrstructional memorandum pending revision.

All Both fxc0006GB

568. Arralyses prepared during the NEPA pfoce,cs should flot start with the assumption that a given activity embodied within the 

multiple*use concept is a threat to sage grouse habitat or corrservation- Rather, thc startirrg premise should be that 

All Both fxc0006GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-108 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

properly managed activities can provide berrefits for sage grouse. The analysis should make every effort to incorpor:ate 

sustairrably managed activities irrto the protection strategies. The members of Nevada Rural Electric Association believe 

that we have been, and continue to be. responsible stewards of the resources in the a.reas we serve. Further, we believe that 

healthy industries that rely on multiple-use land management are critical and beneficial to greater sage- Erause conservation. 

Preserving access to lands, both public and private, for those users without unnece*csary restrictions due to the potential 

listing of a species with such a large habitat fosters this stewardship

569. Many strategies have been identified and implemented in Nevada and other western states in the last few years to Improve 

sage grouse habitat. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to monitor the success (or failure) of the recently-implemented changes 

rather than develop reactionary strategies that ultimately may not even be needed. Plant communities respond slowly to 

chang@. Mapping or habitat Inventory projects to determine the actual condition of sagebrush habitat across the west 

seems to be the most logical place to start, otherwise recommendations are being developed blindly.

All Both fxc0010GB

570. Request extension of comment period until approximately May 2012. All Both cfc0009RM

571. Lifetime ag experiences have given the opportunity to observe sage grouse year around and the habitat loss claim is 

extremely bad misinformation. The birds have been in decline since the 1970's in this area and G&F failed to listen to citizen 

concerns.

All Both cfc0011RM

572. I would like to know where the science-based research is regarding the statement "sage grouse have declined in number 

over the last 100 years because of the loss, degradation and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat essential for their survival." 

I do not believe this statement can be substantiated by research.

All Both cfc0012RM

573. I question whether the effort required to implement the proposed amendment would yield commensurate results in the 

form of new information or applied conservation.

All Both cfc0015RM

574. Like others at the meeting held in Saratoga on February 13, I am in favor of better predator control. If an exemption were 

granted, ravens would be the best candidates for thoroughgoing control in a large area of sage grouse habitat- chiefly BLM 

and private- over a number of years. But special attention to a few small National Forest parcels would not be useful. I 

believe the USFS should concentrate its available resources on the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. However, if the 

amendment is adopted the Forest Service should select just one parcel for related activities.

All Both cfc0015RM

575. Forest Service has used NGO's to trap and translocate prairy dogs. Can these or other NGO's be used to facilitate needs for 

improvements to accommodate sage grouse habitat?

All Both cfc0016RM

576. More work needs done on captive breeding programs, & private enterprise should be allowed participation. While this could 

eventually result in someone making a profit (antathema to many displaced communist do-gooders) the result could be 

greater numbers of grouse- the real bottom line!!

All Both cfc0018RM

577. When Sage Grouse and prarie dog plan are in conflict ie (translocations) for some buffer zones (surface disturbances) does 

Guidelines equally to Fed agencies.

All Both cfc0020RM

578. Lack of mineral develop will cause direct invasive loss to my operation. All Both cfc0020RM

579. Scoping is an extremely important part of the NEPA Process: today 9 Feb 2012 is the first opportunity for the public to 

participate. I want to remind the Federal Agencies involved in this planning document that NEPA LAW is your guideline and 

All Both cfc0021RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-109

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

shall be followed. The Council on Environmental Quality has issued CFR 1500 thru 1588. These rules are concise in your 

obligations and are to be followed.

580. Are there any programs that we can get in on our private land to help with the grouse, this may help with the Forest Service 

lease if we get our private land in a management program.

All USFS cfc0023RM

581. The mandate of multiple use on these public lands needs to be maintained for the good of the public. The lands should not 

be managed soley for the use of one species.

All Both cfc0024RM

582. Flexibility needs to be maintained so local management decisions can be made that balance all needs for all different 

ecosystems.

All Both cfc0024RM

583. Prefer the no action plan. All Both cfc0024RM

584. 3% disturbance is a lot, especially considering the past 14 years. 10% would be more realistic. No more than 1 disturbance 

per section is not realistic either due to changing landscapes. There should be mitigation allowances made. Erusting used 

roads and large/medium reservoirs should not be counted.

All Both cfc0025RM

585. We hope you will consider the different habits of sage grouse- and likely other species- in different parts and different 

geographic locations of the west and not make a "one plan suits all" set of rules.

All Both cfc0025RM

586. First and foremost it is imperative that all applicable laws must be considered when proposing Sage Grouse management 

measures. Social and economic impacts must be considered and given priority to changes made strictly for grouse.

All Both cfc0032RM, 

rmc0025RM

587. People assume that only natural features can be habitat and artificial features cannot, but nature does not recognize the 

distinction between "natural" and "artificial". Wildlife will drink from and live in a watering hole, regardless of whether it was 

put there by geology or by the BLM. Birds will perch in a high place, regardless of whether it is a dead tree that grew there

or a dead tree that a rancher pounded into the ground to make a fence. Swallows will nest on cliffs or under the eaves of 

houses and outbuildings. Ungulates use roads for travel, especially in winter. The bird species that congregate on roads 

include horned larks, lark buntings, spotted owls, McCown's longspur, lark sparrows, and sage grouse.

All Both emc0013RM

588. When a "green" NGO acquires a ranch, their first act is often to remove all this habitat. They may congratulate themselves, 

but nature does not thank them. Artificial structures, in moderation, increase habitat diversity and thus create niches for 

more species on the range, which increases biodiversity and ecological health.

All Both emc0013RM

589. Government agencies prefer to make procedural objectives. These objectives are easy to meet: simply perform the 

procedure. But procedural objectives do not always lead to the intended goal. For example, it would be easy to accomplish 

the objective of "remove 5 miles of fencing". The amount removed is measurable. When the total is removed, the goal is 

accomplished. But there is no guarantee that accomplishing the objective has benefitted sage grouse. 2.1.2 Results-Focused 

Objectives By contrast, the objective "maintain the 10-year average sage grouse population count" is difficult to measure. 

It is not clear how it can be accomplished. But if it is accomplished, the sage grouse have benefitted.

All Both emc0013RM

590. The sage grouse doesn't care if the BLM meets the objectives of the RMP. The sage grouse knows that northeast Montana 

is a good place to live. The sage grouse has been living here, with cattle, for a century. The RMP should begin with the 

assumption that current management practices have been good for the sage grouse, because that is what the sage grouse 

tells us by being here. Of course, the RMP needs to find ways to expand sage grouse into places where they are not 

All Both emc0013RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-110 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

plentiful, but this should be done by making those places more like the places sage grouse currently want to be. And the only

criterion for success should be whether or not the sage grouse move in. In places where the sage grouse has survived, land 

management should not be changed. The results show that current practices are good for grouse.

591. The key to conserving a species is keeping its environment stable. If change is unavoidable, a good conservation plan attempts

to moderate and slow the rate of change so that the population has a chance to adapt. Too often, conservation plans 

instead advocate radical change. A major change in resource extraction, livestock grazing, road use, or fire suppression 

policy would lead to a major change in the ecosystem that could harm thriving populations of sage grouse. The RMP should 

identify external factors that could lead to increase or decrease of resource extraction, livestock grazing, road use, or fire 

frequency and find ways to counteract the threat of change. In particular, the RMP should commit the BLM to doing its part 

to keep local ranches healthy and economically viable.

All Both emc0013RM

592. The impacts of a proposed change should be tested before it is implemented over a wide region. The best way to test the 

impacts is to compare a few changed management units with a control group of unchanged units. 3.1.1 Baseline Begin with 

monitoring to establish that the units to be changed are, in fact, similar to the control group. Measure not only factors 

believed to be relevant to sage grouse but also actual sage grouse numbers during mating season, nesting season, late 

summer, and winter. To ensure a good baseline and to control for weather fluctuations, the baseline study should cover at 

least 5 years, although 10 would be better. 3.1.2 Apply and Monitor the Treatment Once the baseline study has 

established that every management unit in the study has a orresponding control unit, apply the proposed change in 

management to the selected units. Monitor the results for at least 10 years (although 20 would be better), paying special 

attention to actual sage grouse numbers. 3.1.3 Adaptive Management Pay attention to how the proposed change impacts 

the study sites. If it harms sage grouse over a 3-year period, then abort the study. If it has no impact over a 5-year period, 

then abort the study and return to the old management unless the new management has benefits that enhance the 

partnership between ranches and the BLM. If it has important benefits to sage grouse over a 10-year period, then expand the 

area of new management, taking care to continue monitoring every year in case the negative impacts are longer-term.

All Both emc0013RM

593. Each proposed conservation measure in the EIS should be analyzed in terms of how much it costs and how much the grouse 

population will benefit. The following conservations measures should be included in this analysis: - Various methods of 

coyote control. - Various methods of raptor control. - Various methods to reduce danger from fences. - Various methods 

to reduce danger from vehicle traffic. - Various methods to protect grouse from disease. - Various methods to limit 

exposure to pesticides. Each method should be rated according to two measures: 1. Number of grouse saved per dollar 

spent on materials and labor. 2. Number of grouse saved per laborer-hour of time spent. When considering these 

measures, the EIS should analyze costs from three different viewpoints: 1. When the BLM employs the person doing the 

labor; 2. When the BLM contracts with a third party to do the labor; 3. When the BLM encourages ranchers or other 

partners to perform the labor. Ranchers' time and BLM funds are limited. The RMP should focus on conservation measures 

that provide the highest return for the time and money invested.

All Both emc0013RM

594. If the RMP proposes changes in land management, certain areas of good sage grouse production should be set aside as 

preserved from management changes. Otherwise, unforeseen consequences of the change could eliminate all sage grouse 

habitat in the region.

All Both emc0013RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-111

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

595. The BLM should explore ways to encourage ranchers to stay on their land and not sell out to energy development. This must 

include ways to assure ranchers that their grazing allotments can be passed on to future generations.

All BLM emc0013RM

596. In areas where sage grouse currently thrive, the RMP should make no changes to current grazing, road use, and 

fire-suppression practices.

All Both emc0013RM

597. The numerous plans and corresponding acreage that will be affected by the decisions in this EIS process will transform the 

landscape; it is critical that the agencies make the most of this opportunity and set out a management approach with 

long-term and large-scale vision. The BLM has both substantial authority and the obligation to protect sage-grouse habitat 

using its many existing tools, as well as to protect the many other resources on the public lands. The BLM should use the 

significant opportunities presented by the lands and uses at issue in this EIS process to protect greater sage-grouse habitat, 

improve the greater sagebrush ecosystem, and strengthen the health of the entire National System of Public Lands.

All BLM emc0234GB, 

emc0094RM

598. BLM must also evaluate the impacts of grazing and associated infrastructure, water developments, special recreation permits 

and recreation management of other resource programs in determining appropriate management of ACECs designated to 

protect and enhance sage-grouse habitat.

All BLM emc0234GB, 

emc0094RM

599. There is uncertainty regarding which management actions will yield the greatest reductions in risk. Thus, a portfolio of 

approaches must be undertaken within a framework of experimentation to facilitate rapid learning. BLM's Conservation 

Lands provide scientific laboratories and ecosystems as controls which are managed under differing degrees of protection 

and uses. For example, whereas wilderness areas may provide the most restrictive management for maintaining naturalness, 

national conservation areas, although still having conservation as a priority, may allow for a broader range of management 

options for adaptation than wilderness areas, and national monuments may be somewhere in between depending on the 

proclamation or legislation. The range of available management options is more diverse for BLM lands than for any other 

management agency.

All Both emc0234GB, 

emc0094RM

600. BLM is currently preparing master leasing plans (MLPs) pursuant to 1M 2010-117 to "strategically plan" for leasing and 

development in areas with important resource values, such as critical wildlife habitat, in order to resolve potential resource 

conflicts and environmental impacts. There are three primary steps that BLM must complete as part of preparing MLPs: • 

First, the BLM must fully identify the "important national and local resource/sl" located in MLP areas. 1M 2010-117 at II.A; • 

Second, the BLM must identify and evaluate "potential conflicts" between oil and gas activity and the protection of those 

resources. 1M 2010- I 17 at II.A; and • Third, the BLM must identify and evaluate "planning decisions" to address resource

conflicts. 1M 2010-117 at II.B. By taking these steps, BLM can create MLPs that address both protection of sage-grouse 

habitat from oil and gas development (including closures to leasing and releasing, and stringent protections from drilling 

where appropriate) and conducting responsible oil and gas development in a manner that will not adversely affect 

sage-grouse habitat. In fact, there is sage-grouse habitat in many of the MLPs already under consideration or proposed (such 

as those being evaluated in the Lander (WY), Rock Springs (WY), White River (CO), and Kremmling (CO) RMPs).

All BLM emc0234GB, 

emc0094RM

601. Recommendation: BLM should take the opportunity to evaluate MLPs in EISs and endorse this approach, including MLPs 

already proposed and/or under consideration.

All BLM emc0234GB, 

emc0094RM

602. I am a rancher in north cental Mt. We live on the milk river and run cattle on red rock creek, as well as Lodge creek, and up 

by the Canadian border. Working together with the State, BLM, and our local conservation district we currently have the 

All Both emc0014RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-112 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

healthiest, most diverse grassland ecosystem in the world. Our sage grouse numbers are very plentiful. We are currently in 

a position where we are able to through the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks translocate some of our birds to

Canada. As a fourth generation rancher on the same homestead, we are facing many hardships keeping the ranching 

industry up and running. I encourage you to look into what has worked well for so many years and maybe model other areas 

after us. Please do not upset the apple cart by trying to change our way of operation that has and is working so well.

603. It is my opinion that there will have to be a fundamental shift in your attitudes about wildlife management if Sage-Grouse are 

to be saved.

All Both emc0021RM

604. The only place Sage-Grouse can be saved is on public lands both of your agencies control. Private lands in CRP are a 

temporary solution and can be returned to agriculture with the next Federal Farm Bill. State lands are managed for maximum 

profit.

All Both emc0021RM

605. In a recent book edited by S. T. Knick and J. W Conmelly on Sage-Grouse research it was stated that most attempts to 

restore sagebrush habitats have been unsuccessful. In fact a noted grouse expert, Dr. Clait E. Braun, stated, "I know of no 

areas where Sage-Grouse have re-established their distribution over significant areas of former habitat," (The Wilson Journal 

of Ornithology, Vol. 123, p 655). What this effort will require will be for you to put Sage-Grouse management above all 

other uses on public lands. This means that grazing of livestock and fences should be eliminated in core Sage-Grouse areas. 

All types of land fragmentation, such as roads, power lines, wind farms, oil and gas drilling, etc. will have to be secondary to 

the management of Sage-Grouse. I do not have much faith that your agencies will be capable of such a drastic turn-around. 

In fact, BLM planned to study ecological trends in much of the 260 million acre of the West’s grazing allotments, but told the 

scientists not to consider livestock grazing, due to "anxiety from stakeholders." Such attitudes will absolutely have to change 

if there is any hope to save Sage-Grouse and their habitat. The only real solution that I see is buying out willing ranchers who 

graze in core Sage-Grouse areas. As said, both your agencies will have to put the grouse first.

All Both emc0021RM

606. The sage‐grouse has not been identified as an endangered species and the strategies of the management plan should not 

mirror the more stringent re‐introduction tactics of endangered species.

All Both emc0024RM

607. The Multiple Use Sustained Act Yield Act requires BLM to manage its lands for "multiple uses," including livestock grazing and 

oil/gas exploration and recovery. Resource Management Plans (RMP) should recognize that sage grouse management can be 

compatible with livestock grazing and oil development. Furthermore, normal activities of multiple uses should be allowed to 

continue until the plan revisions have been made. No activities, such as livestock grazing, should be stopped in the interim.

Any change in use should follow existing legal procedures for changing such use.

All BLM emc0024RM

608. The sage‐grouse population covers a wide distribution area in several states. Too often the government establishes policies 

aimed at the one‐size‐fits‐all approach. We contend this is the wrong methodology. The sage‐grouse population, habitat and 

the environmental impact varies between locations. We encourage you to implement programs that consider the variations 

and refrain from using the one‐size‐fits all approach.

All Both emc0024RM

609. Finally, for the sake of transparency, any determinations of "Preliminary Priority Habitat," or any other directions or 

classifications required by this plan, should be subject to public notice and comment.

All Both emc0024RM

610. Furthermore there are already range-wide efforts currently underway by many state and local organizations which are All Both emc0032RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-113

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

focusing on specific, localized concerns. Localized efforts have already been demonstrated to improve habitat quality and 

quantity for Sage Grouse. These localized efforts represent the best chance of increasing the population and health the Sage 

Grouse. These efforts demonstrate great initiative and should be allowed a chance to work. All of these actions are 

happening under the existing regulatory framework, and can continue without the listing of the Sage Grouse as an 

Endangered Species.

611. Furthermore there are already range-wide efforts currently underway by many state and local organizations which are 

focusing on specific, localized concerns. Localized efforts have already been demonstrated to improve habitat quality and 

quantity for Sage Grouse. These localized efforts represent the best chance of increasing the population and health the Sage 

Grouse. These efforts demonstrate great initiative and should be allowed a chance to work. All of these actions are 

happening under the existing regulatory framework, and can continue without the listing of the Sage Grouse as an 

Endangered Species.

All Both emc0032RM

612. The petition for listing the Greater Sage Grouse as an endangered species specifically targets two important western 

industries in particular. The energy industry, and the agricultural industry. Both of these industries are vitally important to 

the economy of our western states and vitally important to our small local economies as well. This fact cannot be 

emphasized enough. While both of these industries bear responsibility to manage their operations to provide for 

conservation of natural resources, we maintain that these industries have demonstrated that they are doing so. The 

regulatory environment in which these industries exist must retain flexibility in order for these industries to survive. The 

regulatory environment must also allow industry leaders and federal agencies the flexibility to develop adaptive management 

strategies to achieve the appropriate balance between the increasing demand for resources and conservation objectives.

All Both emc0032RM

613. We are greatly concerned that conservation and environmental groups have hijacked and abused the Endangered Species 

Act as way to stymie all "human" development and roll the western landscape back to a pre-European condition. The extent 

of this strategy is evident by the consideration given to "potential" habitat. While we support collaborative partnership 

efforts being made to preserve current and proven historic Sage Grouse habitat on a voluntary basis, in effort to conserve 

the species and avoid a listing, we object to the very concept of "potential" habitat. Potential habitat is just a tool used by 

those opposed to multiple-uses to lock up public and private lands in areas that may have never supported any populations 

of Sage Grouse, and for many reasons may not support any Sage Grouse now.

All Both emc0032RM

614. We object to this listing because this interpretation will clearly be liberally applied, under pressure from environmental and 

conservation organizations, to all lands that can conceivably be included as "potential" habitat. Therefore on of our main 

concerns is accurate mapping by the BLM/ Forest Service. Accurate mapping must include adequate coordination with local 

governments and serious consideration given to their input.

All Both emc0032RM

615. We encourage the use of knowledge and science in adaptively managing landscape activities but a sensible balance which 

includes multiple-uses needs to be maintained.

All Both emc0032RM

616. We assert that the ability to manage for the needs of the Sage Grouse can be better met through scientifically based 

initiatives and measures collaboratively formulated by federal and private land managers. We believe strongly in local 

solutions being applied to local problems rather than through ESA regulation. Therefore we support region-specific 

partnerships between federal land management agencies, private industry, and private landowners to identify and implement 

All Both emc0032RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-114 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

conservation measures that will avoid the listing of the Sage Grouse altogether.

617. An impacted party affected by a restricting SG protective rule should have the option to conduct its activities on BLM/USFS 

lands under ESA mitigation rules rather than any of the newly proposed rules. I am very fearful that new regulations will be 

too nebulous and generally unworkable, at least if an impacted party could elect to opt-into ESA mitigation rules, the rules

would at least be transparent.

All Both emc0260GB, 

emc0105RM

618. None of the newly proposed rules should be anywhere near more onerous or restrictive, or even close to as onerous than 

what would be required if SG were ESA protected. That is the stated purpose of this proposal- to keep from imposing more 

restrictive ESA rules- KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN MAKING NEW RULES

All Both emc0260GB, 

emc0105RM

619. If mitigation is required for conducting activities on BLM/USFS lands, the mitigation measures should be fair. In other words, 

if 20 acres of SG habitat is impacted, in kind replacement should be all that is necessary for mitigation. In some district 

BLM/USFS districts, there have been arbitrary, capricious and extremely onerous mitigation imposed upon parties. The EIS 

should specifically limit imposed mitigation by the individual districts

All Both emc0260GB, 

emc0105RM

620. Activities that are temporary in nature, logging, recreation or mining should not be significantly restricted as such activities 

may only result in a temporary impact on SG habitat. Is there any data that supports that a mining or logging activity that last 

for 10 to 20 years and may temporarily impinge of SG habitat, will result in long term habitat loss. I have not seen this in BLM 

data and it needs to be addressed before restrictive rules are emplaced. I have observed SG in many old mining districts, 

consequently, such an impact, even if it lasts 10-20 years does not permanently impact SG habitat. This should be taken into 

account and discussed in the EIS.

All Both emc0260GB, 

emc0105RM

621. 1) Clarification of terminology. ! The terminology used in referring to sage-grouse habitat is at times unclear across

documents, and it may be appropriate to present a range-wide glossary that is complete and explicit in definitions and their 

applications. For example, the IM-2012-043 Definitions (attachment 1) contains only one habitat-related definition, 

Occupied Habitat, and it is referenced in the IM only once. It's definition of Occupied Habitat is: ! "The area currently used 

by Greater Sage-Grouse during any point in its life history. This use may be for a short amount of time (i.e., migration) or 

used throughout the year. In addition, this includes areas used inconsistently and/or seasonally." Although Attachment 1 

qualifies the definitions ("The following terms are associated with this Instruction Memorandum (IM). The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) offices may use other definitions specific to their office or geographic area, so long as the definitions are 

consistent with the intent of this IM."), it appears substantially different than the definition in the National Technical Team 

(NTT) Report, which is verbatim from the Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF): ! "Occupied Habitat (sage-grouse): All 

sagebrush and associated plant communities known to be used by sage-grouse within the last 10 years. Sagebrush areas 

contiguous with areas of known use, which do not have effective barriers to sage-grouse movement from known use areas, 

are considered occupied unless specific information exists that documents the lack of sage-grouse use." Further, the NTT 

Report regularly addresses suitable, unsuitable and non-suitable habitats, but there is no definition for any of these, per se, 

in the NTT Report glossary, nor does the Report cite the Habitat Assessment Framework (Volume II, page II-49) as the

definition source, which it seems to be. On page 29, the NTT Report notes: ! "In August 2010, the Sage‐Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: Multi‐scale Habitat Assessment Tool was completed (Stiver et al. 2010). The assessment 

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-115

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

framework provides policy makers, resource managers, and natural resource specialists a comprehensive framework for 

landscape conservation in sagebrush ecosystems with an emphasis on sagegrouse (sic). Implementation policy directing 

consistent use of the assessment still needs to be completed by BLM in addition to other guidance identified in the strategy."

The BLM National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (November 2004) included a Strategy (1.3.2) to "Develop 

standard terminology for sage-grouse habitats (e.g., stronghold areas, breeding, etc.) for consistent future use." That action 

was deferred to individual BLM states who, working with their respective state wildlife agency, adopted their terms and 

definitions. Many of those, but not all, are commonly used range-wide, as noted in the NTT Report (page 34); "Each State 

may have a slightly different definition of lek, active lek, inactive lek, occupied, and unoccupied leks. Regional planning will use 

the appropriate definition provided by the State of interest." Note that the NTT Report reference is specific to leks, and 

does not address other habitat elements. Although some BLM states have adopted standard terminology for use in planning 

documents in cooperation with their respective state wildlife agency (e.g., Montana), an EIS that incorporates two or more 

states may need to reconcile terminology issues. Further, consistent terminology across EISs would be a service to 

individuals who may plan to comment on two or more of the EISs in that they wouldn't be confronted with similar sounding 

terms whose definitions may differ. Given the range-wide scope of application for the HAF and its specificity to habitat, any

issues about the need to clarify terminology should be resolved early in the EIS process. Prior to issuing the still-needed 

policy and guidance for the HAF, the BLM should work with all appropriate principals to formalize not only the adoption of 

the HAF, but also, to the degree possible, explicit habitat and other terminology to be used in all planning and decision 

documents.

622. Clarification of sage-grouse habitats to be addressed in the EISs. ! Page 6 of the NTT Report states that "Until such time as 

more specific conservation objectives relative to sage‐grouse distribution or abundance by sage‐grouse management zone, 

state, or population are developed, BLM will strive to maintain or increase current distribution and abundance of 

sage‐grouse on BLM administered lands in support of the range‐wide goals." Presumably, the stated intent to "increase 

current distribution" means that all suitable and potentially suitable habitat classified through the HAF will be addressed in 

the EIS and decision process. If so, that should be explicitly stated so there is no ambiguity. In addressing this issue several 

years ago, there was substantial discussion as to the degree of rigor warranted in managing potentially suitable habitat.

Related to terminology, there is no distinction between occupied and unoccupied habitat when discussing priority and 

general sage-grouse habitats. How is suitable but presently unoccupied habitat to be treated? This should be consistent 

across the BLM. Since the IM states "The goal of the Strategy and this IM is to review existing regulatory mechanisms and to 

implement new or revised regulatory mechanisms through the land use planning process to conserve and restore the 

Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat," presumably that means that both suitable-but-unoccupied and potentiallysuitable

habitats must be actively considered in the development of LUP/EIS alternatives. Is that an accurate interpretation?

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

623. 3) Clarification of the scope of the "New Paradigm" ! Page 7 of the NTT Report states: ! ! "Through the establishment of the 

National Sage‐grouse Planning Strategy, the Bureau of Land Management has committed to a new paradigm in managing the

sagebrush landscape. That new paradigm will require collaborative conservation efforts among private, state, tribal, and 

other federal partners to conserve sagegrouse (sic). Land uses, habitat treatments, and anthropogenic disturbances will need 

to be managed below thresholds necessary to conserve not only local sage‐grouse populations, but sagebrush communities 

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-116 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and landscapes as well," As presented, vis-a-vis the sequencing of the second and third sentences, this paradigm appears to 

commit, in addition to BLM, "private, state, tribal, and other federal partners" to managing their lands "below thresholds 

necessary to conserve not only local sage‐grouse populations, but sagebrush communities and landscapes as well." Is that 

intended? If so, is there specific written agreement articulating such commitment on non-BLM lands? If so, it would be helpful 

to include that information in the EISs. It would also be helpful to discuss local working group sage-grouse conservation plans 

in the context of the new paradigm. Although managing "Land uses, habitat treatments, and anthropogenic disturbances"

"below thresholds necessary to conserve not only local sage‐grouse populations, but sagebrush communities and landscapes 

as well" is being presented as a "new paradigm," paradigm paralysis, characterized as the inability or refusal to see beyond the 

current way of thinking, can be one of the greatest barriers to a paradigm shift. That seems to translate to a concurrent need 

for some degree of agency culture change, typically a long, slow and uncertain process. Will that also be analyzed or 

discussed in the EISs? In the FLPMA, Section 103(c), the definition of "multiple use" is, in fact, supportive of the described new 

paradigm. For far too long, political and agency cultural biases have promoted or accommodated commodity production at 

the expense of fish and wildlife resources, frequently because regulations supporting commodity production take

precedence over fish and wildlife conservation measures. See the discussion under 13a), below. That disparity needs to be 

addressed in the EISs because it will continue to be a factor in land management decisions.

624. 4) Clarification ! Page 7 of the NTT Report states "Priority habitat designations must reflect the vision, goals and objectives 

of this overall plan if the conservation measures are to be effective." (emphasis added) In reviewing both IM 2012-043 and IM 

2012-044 and their respective attachments, I could find no vision statement, per se, in the new planning strategy. The only 

time a word search of any of these documents yielded the actual word "vision" was in one of the citations in the NTT Report 

(Naugle, D.E. and B.L. Walker. 2007. A collaborative vision for integrated monitoring of greater sage‐grouse populations) 

(emphasis added). Is there a vision statement for "this overall plan"? If so, in what document(s) is it presented?

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

625. Clarification/comment ! Page 7 of the NTT Report states "Manage priority sage‐grouse habitats so that discrete 

anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage‐grouse habitat regardless of ownership. Anthropogenic 

features include but are not limited to paved highways, graded gravel roads, transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil 

and gas wells, geothermal wells and associated facilities, pipelines, landfills, homes, and mines." It appears that the 3% 

"discrete anthropogenic disturbances" reference means actual physical surface disturbance and does not encompass 

attendant larger footprints associated with those disturbances (acoustic, visual, over-the-horizon). If that is true, it would be 

helpful to make that distinction, and also that the phrase "total sage-grouse habitat" is similarly constrained to meaning only 

the vegetated landscape. However, the NTT Report also specifies that "Disturbance can be described within categories as

discrete (having a distinct measureable (sic) impact in space and time)....", which does not seem to necessarily preclude 

potential consideration of larger footprint impacts. Even though a physically disturbed area may constitute "just" 3% of a 

given physical habitat delineation, the footprint of such disturbance can substantially exceed 3% since the more inclusive 

concept of habitat encompasses not only the physical surface of the land, but also acoustic (noise), viewshed (tall structure) 

components that may have direct influences on sage-grouse (behavior, predation), and over-the-horizon influences, such as

structures that may support avian predators. In addressing impacts associated with minerals development, pages 19-21 of the 

NTT Report provide a good discussion of such impacts. In order to have fuller understanding as to the actual impacts of 

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-117

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

anthropogenic disturbances, it seems reasonable to graphically depict acoustic, viewshed, and over-thehorizon profiles. As 

an example of the scope of impact, note on page 13 of the NTT Report the reference to 39% of habitat being influenced by 

predators on power lines. That's part of the total anthropogenic footprint affecting grouse and that sort of impact should 

somehow be addressed in conjunction with the 3% physical disturbance. And if 3% is the goal for the specified priority 

sage-grouse habitats, which represent the best of what remains, what are the parameters for habitats that are not presently

classified as priority habitats, and how is that likely to affect accomplishing BLM's stated intent to "maintain or increase 

current distribution and abundance of sage‐grouse on BLM administered lands in support of the range‐wide goals"? For 

purposes of the EIS analyses, maximum allowable disturbance parameters should also be expressed for sage-grouse habitats 

that are not classified as "priority." In the Final Report of the Greater Sage-grouse Range-wide Issues Forum, the goals and

objectives developed by Forum members for three Habitat Conservation and Land Use sub-issues (Energy Corridors, Roads 

and Railroads, and Tall Structures) identify acoustic (noise disturbance) and tall structure concerns. Also, several places in 

the NTT Report directly or indirectly address noise-related issues.

626. Page 9 of the NTT Report states: "(2) Proposed anthropogenic surface disturbances within an individual priority area will 

be encouraged to occur in areas of existing development, or areas of non‐suitable habitats. Suitable buffers, depending on the 

occurrence of adjacent seasonal habitats and local information (e.g. migratory vs. non‐migratory populations; [Connelly et al. 

2000]) may be applied in siting a proposed anthropogenic surface disturbance to protect surrounding suitable, undisturbed 

habitats." How are the terms suitable and unsuitable being used with respect to terminology in the HAF? Also, does the 

reference to "suitable, undisturbed habitats" mean unoccupied habitats, as well as occupied habitats?

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

627. Page 9 of the NTT Report states: "Assess general sage‐grouse habitats to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat 

caused by perturbations and/or disturbances and provide connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011) between priority areas.

These habitats should be given some priority over other general sagegrouse habitats that provide marginal or substandard 

sage‐grouse habitat." How does the terminology "marginal or substandard" used in this instance compare with that in the 

HAF? In the HAF, the term Marginal is a defined classification term of Habitat Suitability, but the term substandard does not 

exist in the HAF, nor is it defined in the NTT Report. The use of terminology should be consistent.

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

628. Page 10 of the NTT Report states: ! "Restore historical habitat functionality to support sage‐grouse populations guided by 

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

Enhance general sage‐grouse habitat such that population declines in one area are replaced elsewhere within the habitat."

Regarding the first sub-objective above for general habitat, "guided by objectives," at what scale? The NTT Report does not 

specify whether the objectives are at the LUP scale, or a substantially larger scale that may also encompass one or more 

other LUP areas and/or non-BLM lands. None of the narrative within this Goal and Objectives section of the Report, up to 

this point, makes a specific link to any administrative unit, such as LUP boundaries. If this is to be a step-down process from 

larger scale objectives to individual LUP areas, it would seem that coordination of same across LUP boundaries would take 

place during the EIS process. Is that the case? Regarding the second sub-objective: Since the second sentence of the first 

sub-objective is specific to the LUP (and it is not an objective, per se), does the order in which the two points are presented 

necessarily mean that the second sub-objective is also constrained to habitats within the LUP boundaries, or does it mean, 

for example, that population declines in one LUP area are replaced elsewhere within a larger defined habitat that may span 

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-118 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

two or more LUP areas? It is not really clear.

629. At the bottom of Page 13 in the NTT Report, the word "preservation" is used for the first time in the document, yet it is not 

defined in the glossary, and there is no context provided to differentiate it from conservation. The second time it is used is 

on page 29, referring to "preservation of key seasonal habitat components." How is preservation different from the 

"conserve" definition provided in the glossary? Although the word "conservation" is not specifically defined in the glossary, 

is it presumed to be an extension of the definition for "conserve"?

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

630. Comment: BLM Objectives ! The BLM's stated objective for the Planning Strategy is RMP-centric. In addition to addressing 

habitat management issues in the RMPs, there should be a related public process component wherein higher-level 

Regulatory Framework issues can be surfaced and addressed. Examples of such issues include: ! - The lack of BLM regulations 

for "fish and wildlife development and utilization," which is one of the six "principal or major uses" of the public lands 

specified in Section 103(l) of the Federal Land and Policy Management Act. Management of the other five designated uses in 

FLPMA Section 103(l) are guided by use-specific regulations (domestic livestock grazing, mineral exploration and production,

rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production). I have previously addressed this issue in letters to the BLM and 

FWS, and those comments still apply. Essentially, it boils down to the fact that without meaningful regulations for the 

management of fish and wildlife resources on BLM administered lands, decisions regarding the other five designated uses 

always take precedence over fish and wildlife considerations (unless other federal laws and regulations are invoked, such as 

ESA) because decisions are required to be made "consistent with applicable laws and regulations." Note in the body of IM 

2012-044 the language "When considering the conservation measures in Attachment 1 through the land use planning 

process, BLM offices should ensure that implementation of any of the measures is consistent with applicable statute and 

regulation. Where inconsistencies arise, BLM offices should consider the conservation measure(s) to the fullest extent 

consistent with such statute and regulation." The second sentence clearly infers that conservation measures are subordinate.

In my opinion, an overarching regulatory framework that subordinates fish and wildlife resource management considerations 

to the other five designated principal or major uses of the public lands also needs to be evaluated with respect to the 

inadequacy of the regulatory framework. The ready ability and willingness of different administrations to quickly alter policies 

and program emphases through budget and other means underscores the need to also address the inadequacy of the 

regulatory framework for fish and wildlife resources on BLM public lands above the RMP level and, as appropriate, develop 

reasonable and prudent regulations for their management. The case can also be made that programs for which regulations 

exist are subject to more scrutiny than those without regulations, if for no other reason than that the primary control for 

those programs are the regulations on the books. A related observation is that, with no BLM fish and wildlife related 

regulations against which to judge BLM performance in meeting its FLPMA obligations, primary recourses for the public to 

get BLM's serious attention are increasingly either the filing of ESA petitions, such as those for greater sagegrouse, and/or 

challenging BLM decisions in federal court.

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

631. Also in IM 2012-44, the BLMʼ s stated "objective is to conserve sage-grouse and its habitat and potentially avoid an ESA 

listing." Although the Introduction to the Planning Strategy Charter reinforces a crisis-avoidance perception, the stated 

objective following the Introduction is what really should, with minor syntax modification, form the foundation for not only, 

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-119

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in this case, greater sage-grouse, but for all fish and wildlife resources under BLM jurisdiction: ! "The BLM's objective for 

chartering this planning strategy effort is to develop new or revised regulatory mechanisms, through RMPs, to conserve and 

restore the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on BLM-administered lands on a range-wide basis over the long-term." With 

respect to focused management intended to attempt to preclude ESA listings, it is instructive to review the January 1994 

Memorandum of Understanding among the U. S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, National Park Service, 

and National Marine Fisheries Service (94-SMU-058). The stated purpose of the MOU is "... to establish a general framework 

for cooperation and participation among the cooperators in the conservation of species that are tending toward federal 

listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C." With respect to BLM, MOU 

94-SMU-058 states " The BLM also has a national policy (BLM Manual 6840) and strategic plans for implementing BLM's Fish 

and Wildlife 2000, an initiative to manage habitats for plant and animal species to prevent the need for their federal listing 

under the Endangered Species Act." What's relative to the currently stated objective in the Charter is that in 1994 the BLM 

had much of the necessary information "to conserve and restore the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on 

BLM-administered lands on a range-wide basis over the long-term." Responsibilities specified under the MOU include: ! "III. 

COOPERATORS SHALL: ... ! ! 3. Use appropriate procedures to ensure adherence to all legal requirements in analyzing 

changes and establishing new management direction for habitat conservation. When appropriate, this will include 

amendment or revision of land and resource management plans or changes to the cooperators directive systems. These 

amendments and/or changes, in addition to a signed conservation agreement, will provide a basis for and commitment to the 

new direction." (emphasis added) The point of this discussion is that the BLM had sufficient information in 1994 to begin

taking positive actions, including specifically identified key habitats for greater sagegrouse. And yet, by and large, 

follow-through was sorely lacking until the present listing crisis arose. It wasn't until 2003 that the BLM began to develop the 

2004 National Sagegrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. One species for which we did move forward under the MOU was 

for Canada lynx, although that, too, was crisis-response. From an overarching programmatic standpoint, what is (are) the 

BLM objective(s) with respect to other special status species outside of greater sage-grouse range? What is the long-term 

BLM strategy for managing fish and wildlife resources under its jurisdiction, irrespective of status? Does the BLM still

recognize and endorse MOU 94-SMU-058, or has it been supplanted?

632. 13b) Clarification: BLM Special Status Species Management Policy (Manual 6840) and RMP preparation ! Which version of 

Manual 6840 will be used in revising the RMPs, 2001 or 2008? In a September 28, 2011, U. S. District Court decision, 

Western Watershedsʼ motion for partial summary judgment challenging 16 RMPs in six western states was granted on two

test cases (Case 4:08-cv-00516-BLW). Among the omissions the Court determined in BLM's NEPA documentation and 

analyses for the Craters of the Moon (Idaho) and Pinedale (Wyoming) RMPs was that BLM failed to address its Special Status 

Species policy (6840) and its 2004 National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. At the time those RMPs were 

prepared, the 2001 version of Manual 6840 was in effect, a fact addressed in the amended complaint (paragraph 97): ! "The 

2001 version of the Special Status Species Policy was in effect during the consideration and adoption of all the challenged 

RMPs at issue here, and thus governs the Courtʼ s judicial review despite Defendantsʼ effort to weaken that policy as the 

Bush Administration is leaving office." In revising the challenged RMPs, the 2001 version of Manual 6840 will apparently 

prevail. On December 12, 2008, a revised Manual 6840 was issued under the signature of then Director James Caswell, even 

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-120 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

though the 2001 release was the most recent, in some cases by decades, of the Fish, Wildlife and Special Status Species 

manuals. The reason given at the time for the revision was that the 2001 version was "too constraining" in its protection 

provisions for sensitive species. Several questions arise, including which version of the 6840 will be used in revising the RMPs, 

given that it appears the 2001 version will take precedence for the challenged RMPs? Is there a need for consistency within 

and across EIS areas such that the 2001 version would be appropriate as the over-arching Special Status Species Management

policy document? And, as a policy level document in the regulatory framework, the 2001 version is arguably a stronger 

regulatory framework element than the 2008 version. Does that need to be reconciled? The BLM may wish to consider 

vacating the 2008 version in deference to the 2001 version until such time as the BLM completes an open, inclusive NEPA 

process to identify and resolve perceived issues with the 2001 version.

633. 14) Clarification: How many land use planning units contain greater sage-grouse habitat? The body of IM 2012-044 states 

"The BLM has 68 land use planning units which contain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat," yet Attachment 2, the Planning 

Strategy Charter, states that "Greater sage-grouse habitat covers 73 BLM land use planning units (not including the excepted 

populations noted above)." Which is correct? The numbers presented in conjunction with the 73 figure appear to validate it.

All Both emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

634. 15) Comment: Consider stretching the planning horizon for RMPs. ! The Charter states that, of the 73 land use planning 

units, "22 are managed under Management Framework Plans or RMPs completed before 2000 and 21 are managed under 

RMPs completed since 2000. Currently, the BLM has 28 plans under revision." In other words, the historical 10-year planning 

horizon for LUPs and their attendant revision has been exceeded for 22 RMPs and MFPs, and likely for many of the 28 now 

under revision. For a variety of reasons, including the number of plan revisions that historically have not been taken place 

within target planning horizons, the present dismal budget outlook, and the length to time required to achieve detectable 

positive change on arid and semi-arid rangelands in response to management changes, longer planning horizons seem

warranted.

All Both emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

635. 17a) Comment: Habitat Assessments and the EISs Habitat Assessments at the finest scale reasonable should be a component 

of all the EISs.

All Both emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

636. 21) One-stop information portal ! Create a single on-line repository or portal for all BLM sage-grouse related documents, 

data bases and other information. Consider establishing a BLM web page or other mechanism to facilitate public assess to the 

many sage-grouse related documents (IM, IB, EIS, ROD, MOU), annual and other reports, GIS information and other 

resources

All BLM emc0113GB, 

emc0036RM

637. We feel it is critical that the BLM and FS take a proactive approach to not only protect but also restore sage‐grouse habitat 

in southeast Oregon. We urge you to implement the recommended conservation measures found in the 2011 'Report on 

National Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures' to the fullest extent possible

All Both emc0263GB

638. All development projects should include the restoration of degraded habitat so that so that there is a net conservation

benefit upon completion of each project. It is important that all project and other planning documents be made available to 

the public so that we may follow your progress

All Both emc0263GB

639. Please support sage‐grouse recovery. I believe we must reduce livestock grazing in priority habitat in order to restore

grasses and other flowering plants especially in riparian areas; stop prescribed fires and avoid vegetation treatments

All Both emc0264GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-121

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

especially with tractors or chemicals in these areas

640. NACo supports the ongoing sage grouse management efforts of state and local governments, stakeholder working groups, 

and BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) throughout the Eleven Western States. Efforts to date are protecting and 

restoring sage grouse habitats and reviving sage grouse populations. In light of these efforts, NACo opposes listing the

Greater Sage Grouse as a threatened or endangered species at this time.

All Both emc0265GB

641. This effort has produced best management practices for protecting the Greater Sage Grouse in harmony with other multiple 

uses. These best management practices are being followed in BLM RMPs throughout the Eleven Western States. NACo 

supports this locally driven commitment to conserve the Greater Sage Grouse while preserving other important multiple 

uses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should not list the Greater Sage Grouse as T&E species at this time as such action is 

not necessary. NACo urges continued application of best management practices by state, federal and local land management 

agencies, which will continue to make sage grouse populations stabilize and thrive throughout the West.

All Both emc0265GB

642. The scoping statement identifies 438,500 acres on the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (TBNG) as potential sage grouse 

habitat. That, to us, seems to be an abundance of habitat for the birds. Why is the bird population declining? We believe it is 

due to the following: West Nile virus, eagles, hawks, fire, cheat-grass and numerous predators. The Scoping Statement states 

the BLM has over 30 MILLION acres of occupied sage grouse habitat; therefore, we believe there is no shortage of habitat 

for the sage grouse.

All Both emc0266GB

643. Colowyo has a history of more than 30 years of documented support of wildlife enhancement programs, mine impact 

mitigation work and direct support (tlu·ough unfettered access and direct financial support) of wildlife monitoring and 

scientific research involving many wildlife species. Colowyo believes that these activities have contributed to the continued 

presence of Greater Sage Grouse in the area. Additionally, Colowyo feels that the Bureau of Land Management's continuing 

support of mining activities near and within areas utilized by Greater Sage Grouse populations will in fact provide a 

mechanism for continued success of populations locally. The current regulatory framework and requirements for baseline 

data collection and evaluation, consultation and negotiation have served the concept of multiple use well while supporting

economic stability in rural northwest Colorado. In many cases, data collected by energy/mining industry companies has 

provided the best information to date regarding local population dynamics.

All Both emc0270GB, 

emc0116RM

644. Ultimately, the end result of this process should be a consistent poliey that incorporates an attainable and quantifiable 

biological benefit for Greater Sage Grouse populations while continuing to support the Bureau of Land Management's 

mandate for promoting multiple use, including continued opportunities for energy development and mining operations.

All Both emc0270GB, 

emc0116RM

645. The Kane County Commission recognizes the importance of the goal of the Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive 

Conservation Strategy, referenced in the Conservation Measures, “to maintain and enhance populations and distribution of

sage-grouse by protecting and improving sagebrush habitats and ecosystems that sustain these populations.” (Stiver et al., 

2006). However, the protection and enhancement measures must be tempered by the need for resource development,

other uses of the public and private lands, and the fiscal well-being of Kane County and its residents

All Both emc0271GB

646. A review of Appendices C. through F. appear to be reasonable to allow for development of resources while still maintaining 

or improving an environment that is suitable sage-grouse and its habitat.

All Both emc0271GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-122 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

647. Aside from these comments, we would like to again voice our strong support for inter-agency cooperation and consultation 

as set forth in the 2011 Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy with emphasis on the need and 

value of Regional and Sub-Regional Interdisciplinary Teams. National efforts to keep the Sage-Grouse off the list of 

threatened and endangered species simply will not be successful without the full cooperation and coordinated efforts of local

entities (regardless of political boundaries) with responsibility for habitat and species management.

All Both emc0271GB

648. We also believe that the 2009 Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Management Plan, with some minor updating, is a sound strategic 

document that not only provides good issue definition, but also a solid foundation for initiation of actions that are designed 

to improve/maintain species habitat and mitigate current and future activities that may be in conflict with planning goals.

All Both emc0271GB

649. Sage Grouse habitat is already addressed with existing regulations, which provide measures to mitigate habitat destruction 

on every project. The ground covered by mineral claims is large, but the percentage of this land that is actually occupied or 

disturbed for mineral exploration is very small.

All Both emc0272GB, 

emc0110RM

650. The methods used to build the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) Greater Sagegrouse habitat categorization map 

are scientifically flawed on multiple fronts: (a) They apply numerical data processing techniques to categorical data, which is 

scientifically unacceptable (see below). (b) The data used to build vegetation classifications are inherited from many separate 

mapping campaigns using different types of input data, resulting in an output predictive map that lacks spatial consistency and 

coherency. (c) Some of the remote sensing methods used to map vegetation types are the same techniques used to map 

hydrothermally altered rocks associated with mineral deposits. Thus the maps may confuse vegetated areas with 

vegetation-poor zones of mineralization.

All Both emc0272GB, 

emc0110RM

651. In summary, there is no valid basis for the proposal to go forward in its current form. We are opposed to this kind of 

unilateral action that forces scientists to cobble together data of mixed heritage and quality to make decisions that 

unnecessarily restrict multiple use on vast acreages of land when detailed regulations are already in place to mitigate wildlife 

disturbance.

All Both emc0272GB, 

emc0110RM

652. This land is mandated to be managed by the BLM for multiple use. The small and temporary use made for mineral exploration 

is compatible with other uses of the land, including Sage Grouse habitat. It is fundamentally absurd that huge amounts of land 

can be removed from multiple use with the argument of protecting a species when a detailed permitting process is already 

in place to protect this wildlife on a case by case basis.

All Both emc0272GB, 

emc0110RM

653. The data used to assemble the NDOW Greater Sage-grouse habitat categorization map do not stand scientific scrutiny. 

Importantly, some of the satellite-based remote sensing methods used to build the map are capable of confusing vegetation 

with mineralized regions. Below is a diagram showing spectral reflectance relative to wavelength, in which a generalized 

green line illustrates vegetation reflectance and a generalized brown line illustrates the reflectance of dry soil. Landsat

thematic mapper (TM) satellite bands are shown in red and the visible part of the spectrum is shown at the bottom for the 

3 primary colors blue, green, and red. The vegetation curve shows reflection at green wavelengths and chlorophyll 

absorption in blue and red wavelengths, which is why vegetation normally appears green. At slightly longer wavelengths, 

strong reflectance in the near infrared region, known as the “red edge” is distinctive of vegetation, and this feature is often

used to map vegetation with satellite imagery. Unfortunately, iron oxides associated with mineralization have spectral 

features similar to the red edge when mapped with the spectral resolution of Landsat. Iron oxide mineralization is one of the 

All Both emc0272GB, 

emc0110RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-123

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

most important signatures used for mineral exploration. Landsat TM bands 5 and 7 have also been used to build vegetation 

indices used in the Sage-grouse habitat map (reference). In this case, band 5/7 ratios of vegetation resemble the ratios 

produced by hydrothermally altered rock that commonly occurs with mineralization. ASTER satellite imagery, which has a 

higher spectral resolution than Landsat imagery, could be used to distinguish vegetation from mineralized areas. In addition, 

more sophisticated Landsat data processing techniques than those used to build the current habitat map, could be more

effective in discriminating mineralization from vegetation. One of these techniques is called Directed Principal Components 

Analysis (DPCA). This technique can separately map vegetation and mineralization in the majority of cases but requires 

experienced oversight to obtain reliable results. An extensive literature in the geosciences describes methods for separately 

mapping both vegetation and mineralization using remotely sensed imagery. In summary, the remote sensing processing 

methods used for assigning vegetation classes were insufficient to assure accurate classification of Sage-grouse habitat 

categories, but higher level processing techniques are available that can produce significantly higher accuracy vegetation 

classifications. Also, any resource analysis using satellite imagery must be verified by carefully planned and conducted surveys 

on the ground in the field. In addition, the maps represent a conglomeration of incomplete mapping campaigns of varied

accuracy, reliability, and age. Unilateral decisions on withdrawal of lands from multiple use should not be based on an 

inconsistent patchwork of incomplete mapping projects. A much more consistent application of criteria could be obtained by 

implementing existing regulations during the established permitting process for proposed land disturbance.

654. Lastly, and fundamentally, at one point in the process of generating the Sage-grouse habitat map, numerical data processing 

methods were applied to categorical data. This issue is described below by our Chief Geoscientist Dr. Mark Coolbaugh: - 4 

- It is likely that the GIS computations used to generate digital maps of habitat in the NDOW white paper “Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Categorization” have strongly biased (inflated) the areas associated with some categories at the 

expense of the areas associated with others. This bias is not related to operator discretion, but instead is caused by the use 

of a GIS filtering technique called “mean aggregation”. The aforementioned white paper describes a process by which mean 

aggregation was utilized to coarsen the resolution of output maps of habitat categorization from an initial pixel size of 30x30

meters to an final pixel size of 100x100 meters. Mean aggregation, as employed in this ArcGIS environment, assigns a value 

to a single 100-meter pixel based on the mean or average value of the smaller 30-meter pixels originally contained within it. 

This results in one 100-meter pixel value replacing 9 or more previous 30-meter pixels. The white paper explains that each 

of the original 30-meter pixels contained an integer number ranging from 0 to 5, corresponding to restoration potential 

categories R-0 through R5. If these 5 categories truly represent a quantitative scale of habitat quality, then the mean value 

might have some meaning as an average assignment of habitat quality. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In reality, each of the 

5 restoration categories is unique, representing a unique combination of vegetation types. Therefore, a “mean” R-value 

inherently has no meaning. For example, the average of an R-1 value (lacking sagebrush canopy) and an R-3 value (presence 

of pinyon/juniper) is not equivalent to an R-2 value (insufficient grasses). Another manner of describing this issue is in terms 

of categorical (nominal) verses interval or ratio-type data. Categorical data includes vegetation types and geologic 

formations. Interval and ratio-type data include, for example, centigrade temperature and kelvin temperature scales,

respectively, and represent data measureable on continuous scales, for which medians and other types of statistical 

calculations have meaning. But mean values do not have significance for categorical data. For example, the average of trees 

All Both emc0272GB, 

emc0110RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-124 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

plus grasses does not equal shrubs, nor does the average of sandstone plus granite equal limestone. A summary of data scales 

and the types of statistical methods appropriate to each of them is provided by Bonham-Carter (1996) and can also be found 

on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement). In addition to the issues described above, the mean 

aggregation method will expand areas associated with intermediate values (for example R-3) at the expense of areas 

associated with extreme values (0, 5, or no data). This bias is a normal result of the smoothing process and would not 

necessarily be a problem if we were dealing with interval or ratio-type data. But in the case of categorical vegetation data, 

areas of R-3 classification become expanded at the expense of other categories because in some cases, R-0 and R-1 numbers 

can combine with R-4 and R-5 numbers to yield mean values equivalent to R-3. One type of filtering operation that is 

appropriate for categorical data is the “majority filter”, and this filter was indeed used in part in the sage-grouse 

categorization process described in the white paper. If it is still considered necessary to coarsen the output pixel grid from 

30 meters to 100 meters, it is recommended that the mean aggregation technique be eliminated, and substituted with other 

filtering or smoothing methods, such as the majority filter or nearestneighbor

655. In summary, the data used to build the Sage-grouse habitat map are inconsistent and in places the methodology is flawed. 

These issues should be addressed before such a map is used to make drastic decisions involving the withdrawal of vast 

amounts of land from multiple use. Mineral exploration activities in any case comprise a very small fraction of lands under 

mineral claims, and existing regulations and the permitting process provide a more consistent and rigorous approach for 

mitigation wildlife disturbance.

All Both emc0272GB, 

emc0110RM

656. As a general and introductory comment, Garfield County (the County) agrees with and appreciates the desire by the BLM 

to ensure the continued persistence of greater sage-grouse and aid in the recovery of the species; however, the County 

cannot support the approach the BLM is suggesting in the GSGCM report, and further questions the purpose and need for 

another lengthy NEPA process, when there are already regulatory mechanisms and extensive sage-grouse protection and 

management plans in place for the appropriate management and assurances for persistence and recovery of the species. 

After reviewing the GSGCM report and supporting literature, we believe that the GSGCM report's recommended 

conservation measures exclude a balancing of resources and preempts existing permitted activities by state or local 

government(s), and would have significant undue hardships on private landowners and other key stakeholders including 

energy companies, which are vital for our local economies. While we understand the goals of protecting and restoring 

sage-grouse habitats, the Conservation Measures would be an extreme hardship on our constituents, and appears to exclude 

other viable alternatives to habitat management and goes beyond what the cited scientific literature has indicated as 

necessary for the continued existence of a health population of this species. Further, with existing NEPA requirements for 

any action on federal lands or for projects with a federal nexus, there are already guidance documents and required review 

by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as Colorado Parks and Wildlife for projects which may impact sagegrouse.

Introducing additional lengthy planning and uncertainty to our constituents at this time is unfair and will cause negative 

impacts to industry, our economies, and our ability to utilize the public and private resources within Garfield County and 

northwestern Colorado.

All BLM emc0058RM

657. Review of Literature from GSGCM Report Upon reviewing the GSGCM report, we reviewed literature cited by the report 

as the basis for the conservation measures. The GSGCM report suggests that only a 3% disturbance of a section be allowed 

All Both emc0058RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-125

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in very limited circumstances at any one time, and on page 21 regarding energy development, the GSGCM reporfs 

Conservation Measures present that the exclusion of mineral development and other disturbances from priority habitats is 

needed where possible and that agencies should limit them as much as possible in other areas (including private lands). The 

same section also states that a 4-mile NSO [no surface occupancy] likely would not be practical given most leases are not 

large enough to accommodate a buffer of this size, and lek spacing within priority habitats is such that lek-based buffers mav 

overlap and preclude all development (emphasis added). It further states that 4-mile buffers around leks are needed to 

ensure the continued persistence of the greater sage-grouse. The 3% surface disturbance conservation measure equates to 

only 19.2 acres of disturbance in a 640-acre section, based on "professional judgment from Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 

2007, Doherty et al. 2008, Doherty et al. 2011, and Naugle et al. 201la, b" (see pg. 8 of GSGCM report). Further, the GSGCM 

report states that if there is already 3% surface disturbance within sage-grouse habitat, then no other uses should be allowed. 

The GSGCM report also indicates that if there is already more than 3% surface disturbance in sagegrouse habitats, then 

significant reclamation activities and mitigations should take place. However, upon reviewing the scientific literature cited by 

the GSGCM report, we do not see where these articles support a maximum limitation of 3% surface impacts within sage 

grouse habitats as needed for the continued persistence of the species. We believe that while the cited scientific articles do 

present solid science that sage grouse are sensitive to loss of sagebrush habitats and indirect impacts from road traffic, noise, 

etc., the GSGCM report takes a very extreme stance that is not supported in the cited articles that effectively halting any 

further realistic land-use activities within sage-grouse habitat is needed to protect the species.

658. Range Management / Grazing Range Management or Grazing (domestic livestock and wild ungulate) is a very important 

component of Garfield County's traditional ranching heritage and wildlife herd management which requires working 

together with our public lands. In preparation of the EIS, Garfield County recommends the BLM work closely with the 

Cattleman's Association and the Wool Growers Association for both Colorado and other states which are also affected by 

the EIS to gain their valuable input into this process.

All Both emc0058RM

659. 1. CLUB 20 urges you to give maximum standing to the input from local planning efforts in developing alternatives for the 

EIS and SEIS; those participating at the local level have actual experience with the land and subject being considered; 2. 

Alternatives that allow for a "one size fits all" programs can negatively impact opportunities for multiple use of public lands 

that may ultimately enhance habitat for sage grouse; local planning groups have the best knowledge of what works best in 

their regions

All Both emc0068RM

660. It is unfortunate that BLM has stated they will utilize the Technical Team Report as an alternative in the EIS. CLUB 20 believes

the technical team report should not be considered as an alternative due to its incomplete portrayal and biased position 

against other uses of federal lands such as energy development, recreation and livestock grazing. CLUB 20 does not believe 

the Technical Team Report to be a practical sideboard for alternative analysis. However, if it is utilized as an alternative,

because it drastically impedes other uses for lands inhabited by sage grouse, there should be an equally opposite alternative 

that emphasizes recreation, energy, and agricultural uses of federal lands.

All Both emc0068RM

661. When it comes time to select a preferred alternative, cooperating agency responses should be given due and proper 

consideration regarding their preferred alternative;

All Both emc0068RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-126 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

662. Flexible and Adaptive Management concepts must be built into alternatives that allow for appropriate exemptions for land 

uses in a sage grouse habitat where biological reviews demonstrate that another use will not negatively impact the habitat of

the sage grouse.

All Both emc0068RM

663. Natural resource development, i.e. oil and gas development, can also be accomplished through locally identified management 

plans. Biologists with an understanding of sage grouse requirements can identify areas that are able to sustain surface 

disturbances without negative impacts to the birds in the area. These areas should not be unilaterally made off limits by 

establishing arbitrary boundaries around sage grouse habitat. Again, local input and local management plans are most 

qualified to identify and reflect the most appropriate ways to sustain the sage grouse while continuing to sustain local 

economies.

All Both emc0068RM

664. In summary, CLUB 20 encourages careful consideration of: - Local community sage grouse planning efforts; - Broad and 

scientifically based management alternative considerations; - A fully developed social and economic impact analysis related 

to all communities that may be impacted; and - The development of an EIS that relies on local knowledge and adaptive 

management.

All Both emc0068RM

665. Introduction and Position Statement TC respectfully requests that the federal land management agencies (BLM and U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS)) engaged in developing the subject EIS: -Recognize the viability and value of the coal industry's 

extensive regulatory requirements and related existing regulatory mechanisms, which provide protections for the greater 

sage grouse - Preserve, actively support, and incentivize the extensive voluntary research and on-the-ground efforts to 

protect and conserve the greater sage grouse and its habitat that have been undertaken for more than a decade by a diverse 

group of energy companies, landowners and land-users, as reflected in the existing Colorado Greater Sage Grouse 

Conservation Plan

All Both emc0071RM

666. Alternatives Should Allow for Multiple Use- Alternatives presented in an EIS should balance the need for sage-grouse 

protection with due regard for multiple-use mandates contained in other federal law including the Multiple Use Sustained 

Yield Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-31; the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, 16 U.S.C. 

§§1600-14; and the national Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq. For lands managed by the BLM, the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides in Section 302 that; "[t} he Secretary shall manage the public lands under 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield." 42 U.S. C.§ 1732(a). Furthermore, FLPMA requires management of the public 

lands "in a manner which recognizes the Nation 's need for domestic sources of minerals. " 43 U.S. C. § 1701(11)-(12) In 

2006, the importance of mining on public lands was acknowledged, and BLM endorsed multiple-use for land-use management 

in its 2006 Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy, which states that, with few exceptions, mineral exploration and 

development can occur concurrently or sequentially with other resource uses, and further indicates that the least restrictive 

stipulations that effectively accomplish the resource objectives or uses will be used. See BLM 2006 policy at p. 2. TC 

contends that the numerous directives in federal land management statutes and agency policy must continue to be honored 

in any alternatives crafted to protect the greater sage-grouse.

All Both emc0071RM

667. Sound Science Must Recognize Local Experience - While scientists count leks and evaluate habitat potential, it is important 

that sound alternatives recognize both current conditions, and local experience regarding historic sage grouse activity. In 

reviewing the habitat mapping, it has been noted that some areas identified as habitat have not had documented grouse 

All Both emc0071RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-127

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

presence or activity in over a decade. Another factor that must be carefully weighed is the potential for the grouse to adapt

to changing conditions and environment, and the influence and impacts of other environmental factors, such as predation.

668. Impact of Instructional Memoranda - TC is particularly concerned that the two recently issued Instructional Memoranda, if 

taken to their furthest extent, could effectively result in a moratorium on new activities conducted on public lands which 

have been identified as sage grouse habitat. We urge the BLM to defer action until a full and transparent public process has 

been completed to address sage grouse conservation. Existing measures, we believe, are more than adequate to address 

interim concerns until a specific plan is adopted through a public process.

All Both emc0071RM

669. Sagegrouse populations in our area are healthy. Ranchers and the BLM have worked together to provide habitat the birds 

like. Don't change that.

All BLM emc0028RM

670. In addressing the information found in the NTT’s Goals and Objectives, there are additionally important guidelines and 

measures I have not found the NTT to consider in its observations and recommendations. I will be addressing these 

measures in a list format: NOTE: All the following comments are in context of this paragraph

All Both emc0074RM

671. 2. The Greater Sage Grouse needs to be given an indicator species designation, regardless of its awaited ESA ruling. The 

NTT has not adequately addressed the needs of the Greater Sage Grouse because of the lack of this designation.

All Both emc0074RM

672. The radius of 4 miles given to each known operating lek is inadequate. The circumference for each lek needs to be raised to 

a MINIMUM 5.5 mile radius, therefore increasing overall coverage of all priority habitats. Mere “adequate” coverage, when 

considering this plan covers the span of 20 years, negates the whole preservation and enhancement of current greater sage 

grouse numbers. Current data suggesting a 4 mile radius is enough does not plan for the future.

All Both emc0074RM

673. With regards to linkages between general and general habitats, these linkages should also be given a general status, therefore 

withdrawing them from further consideration of their status.

All Both emc0074RM

674. With regards to linkages that connect priority and general habitats, I ask the BLM to write into the new twenty year plan the

following language, which is taken from Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044, “Where inconsistencies arise, BLM offices 

should consider the conservation measure(s) to the fullest extent...”. Again, I point out the NTT has not written 

progressively stronger and more protective language into its goals and objectives, therefore not properly planning for the 

preservation and enhancement of the habitat and population of the Greater Sage Grouse.

All Both emc0074RM

675. When considering anthropogenic disturbance, the above measures are mandatory and cannot be considered voluntary 

protocol by any party.

All BLM emc0074RM

676. When considering the necessity for habitat preservation, all priority sites will be designated high priority and mandatorily set 

aside from any new or further oil and gas development, as well as road and other leasing development.

All BLM emc0074RM

677. When considering the necessity for habitat preservation, all linkages between any site and a priority site will also be 

designated high priority and mandatorily set aside from any new or further oil and gas development, as well as road and other 

leasing development.

All BLM emc0074RM

678. When considering the necessity for habitat preservation, all general habitat sites will be designated medium priority sites, 

with a mandatory evaluation of their protection from oil and gas development, and road development, and other leasing 

development. It will be mandatory for the BLM to act upon new information provided regarding lek locations, regardless of 

All Both emc0074RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-128 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

their activity status, and to install protective measures in the middle of the finalized land usage plan. These measures will

follow the regulations of all high priority, priority and general habitats, as well as mandatory exemptions from oil and gas 

development, road and other leasing developments as other Greater Sage Grouse habitats have undergone.

679. It is the BLM’s responsibility to come up with a rehabilitation plan for all sites, regardless of the priority, when overusage, 

over-development, or natural causes have created a decline of more than 30% of the existing habitat within any designated 

area. When considering which habitats to rehabilitate first, sites given priority are in the following order: a. All High priority 

areas. b. All Priority areas. c. Any area within a 5.5 mile radius of a lek, regardless of its activity level. d. All linkages between 

any area and a priority or high priority area. e. All general habitat areas.

All BLM emc0074RM

680. The BLM has one year to create and finalize rehabilitation programs for Greater Sage Grouse and their habitat. After the one 

year, implementation must take place.

All BLM emc0074RM

681. All suggestions made by the NTT with regards to conservation measures shall be considered MINIMUM standards for a 

proposal, not for a RMP. These minimum standards will therefore set a path for more substantive measures for the new 

RMP.

All BLM emc0074RM

682. I think that all of the Sage Grouse working groups have good ideas for the areas in which they live. The working groups have 

spent time and money and have volunteered to make sure that the sage grouse habitats are unharmed and that sage grouse 

continue to thrive. It would really be a shame if their plans and ideas from the last 1 0 plus years were not considered at this 

time.

All Both emc0077RM

683. I believe that sufficient sage grouse studies already exist in a broad range including habitat loss, predation, disease, grazing 

management, and every other significant factor. Actual needs simply consist of the will to take management steps, lacking in 

many cases due to a number of apparent reasons.

All Both emc0082RM

684. Although livestock grazing is the highest and best use for much BLM land, many areas of public land managed by BLM grazing 

land could easily be better managed for wildlife. On some BLM land, decades of livestock use has continued to depress game 

habitat as clearly evidenced by adjacent right of way and sometimes adjacent private land sagebrush, greasewood, and habitat 

cover. Habit studies have rarely appeared to change actual use. Certainly cost feasibility prohibits fencing off or separating 

many small areas of riparian or other critical habitat. However, many areas exist where habit can be significantly protected 

without major effects on livestock permit numbers and, in considering minimal grazing fees, certainly without significantly 

impacting income from public lands. I also believe that through the years the oversight and field reviews by range staff has 

varied greatly between different BLM areas.

All Both emc0082RM

685. Although any increase in grazing costs will meet with objections, a moderate raise is so long overdue that it is difficult to

imaging a sound basis for continued objection. Better care of public high wildlife habitat value and riparian areas including

some additional fence and water development with emphasis on wildlife habitat will also encounter some objections. 

Although I believe that sage grouse numbers remain well above the threshold of endangerment or seriously threatened 

species and will remain so, the simple suggestion alone that such designation is possible should be a great embarrassment to 

an agency trusted with management of the public's lands. It is time for simple and logical management adjustments, not 

studies.

All BLM emc0082RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-129

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

686. The dynamic mapping/boundary designation approach to habitat management should be carried forward throughout the 

entire PRMP document and policy actions. CPW encourages the BLM and USFS to use adaptive management with clearly 

defined measurable objectives that can be evaluated with performance standards. Assumptions about the type and quantity 

of policy/project or activity must be field verified and consistently monitored and evaluated. Regularly scheduled evaluations 

would allow the flexibility to consider future applications/technologies, planned developments, and potential land use 

changes that influence grouse habitats and populations. Such considerations and assessments in relation to the PRMP and EIS 

should be completed at interim intervals (of no more than 3 years), or when deemed appropriate based on feedback, as 

opposed to every two decades or longer.

All Both emc0072RM

687. Adaptive management is a time and staff intensive process, and can only be successfully implemented if necessary monitoring 

is completed on a regular schedule. CPW encourages BLM/USFS to provide the necessary funding and staff resources to 

manage PRMP policy direction, monitoring and enforcement for greater sage-grouse protections that will be described in the 

final PRMP. Components of adaptive management require evaluation of proposed thresholds, implementation items, and 

adjustment of management actions as necessary to make effective changes on the ground and in policy documents.

All Both emc0072RM

688. CPW also expects that BLM will consider and analyze a wide range of cumulative impacts of developments on greater 

sage-grouse, including projects that are in the planning or development phase (e.g., interstate transmission lines, interstate 

pipelines, and adjacent state greater sage-grouse RMP revisions). It is unclear to CPW how cumulative impacts will be 

addressed in circumstances where impacts occur across state boundaries, such as is the case with the Hiawatha 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Many questions also remain regarding oil shale energy development. For example, 

how will the potential cumulative impacts of the programmatic oil shale leasing EIS fit into this RMP? Other energy 

development EISs have also been completed and it is unknown how they may integrate with the greater sage-grouse PRMP. 

Will previously analyzed coal mining EIS findings be integrated into this PRMP as well?

All Both emc0072RM

689. I am writing in support of the Sage Grouse Recovery Alternative for management of sage lands of the West. All Both emc0083RM

690. A better scientific basis is needed to identify habitat that supports the entire Greater Sage Grouse life cycle. Telemetry 

methods for this work are advancing rapidly, but robust, peer reviewed methods of extrapolating from intensely studied 

areas to the broad sage sea are lacking. Potentially damaging activities should be suspended until the spatial pattern of high 

quality habitat is established, and when that is done, potentially damaging activities should be allowed only in low quality 

habitat areas. Lateral effects should be thoroughly understood, so that habitat degradation does not occur in one place as a 

result of activities in other places. This last statement implies that grouse studies need to be coupled to quantitative 

characterization of human “built environment” and human activities (e.g. vehicular traffic volumes), in order to observe

lateral influences.

All Both emc0083RM

691. Balance in nature is everything. Please support the sage-grouse recovery alternative (the conservation community 

alternative)

All Both emc0084RM

692. Particular attention needs to be paid to reclamation, which must be successful, not just attempted. In addition, garbage, 

whether it is left by forest users or forest visitors, should be carefully removed since it attracts crows and ravens, as well as 

other scavengers.

All Both emc0088RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-130 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

693. Particular attention needs to be paid to reclamation, which must be successful, not just attempted. In addition, garbage, 

whether it is left by forest users or forest visitors, should be carefully removed since it attracts crows and ravens, as well as 

other scavengers.

All Both emc0088RM

694. The land management agencies should utilize work performed by the Wyoming Sage Grouse Initiative Team. This approach, 

if done properly and in accordance with appropriate state laws, provides for a more flexible approach that can manage for 

local conditions. The approach used by this team was to have all affected uses at the table, offering insight. Rather than use 

a state wide approach (one size fits all), each region of the state was represented by a team of resource users. This approach 

will better facilitate determining strategies which will work best for each area. Individual populations should be managed, 

rather than looking range-wide. Local input will facilitate strategies which will more acceptable to local residents and will also 

be better able to take into account local conditions and resource uses. Local monitoring efforts will also be useful to

determine what is working at the local level. This approach will also be more flexible than a range wide approach.

All Both emc0106RM

695. Finally: Incorporate Total Resource Planning ,TRM,into the Federal Agency Efforts. Total Resource Management is 

understanding the relationship among all of the resources, activities, and external influences; evaluating the impact of 

decisions; planning, organizing, implementing and controlling all activities to best accomplish goals and objectives; and 

accurately forecasting and maintaining flexibility to change quickly to optimize the outcome and reduce risks of decisions 

made. TRM involves thinking, planning and acting in a total resource context. Develop a total resource plan to guide 

decisions by comparing with actual conditions; therefore, controlling goals and objective achievement. In the case of Sage 

Grouse leaving predator control out of the management tools to increase Sage Grouse populations is unacceptable! Once 

study by the University of Idaho followed a year of killing depredating Ravens. The year following Raven Removal Nest 

success was 85%. According to the Scientist who conducted this study , Peter S. Coates, Territorial Ravens know where all 

the nests are and can be 90% successful in robbing nests. Concern that once Territorial Ravens are taken out more nomadic 

ravens may come in and their success would be more like 30% (60% for a pair) we're still 30% ahead and if the average hatch 

is 7 per hen then we could see populations double in a few short years! The US Fish and Wildlife Services need to be a 

partner is this effort and should make a concerted effort to control ravens in the most cost effective and efficient manner. 

Ravens need to be classified as unprotected with an open season and if they were the public would take care of the problem 

without government support and many sensitive, threatened and endangered species would be saved from this species that 

could never be extinguished. Killing Coyote’s and other predators around the leks would also make sense if we’re trying to 

expand the population. In much of Nevada we already have more habitat than we have Sage Grouse. Total Resource planning 

is working with the livestock operators to graze out riparian areas, to provide more livestock and wildlife water sources, and 

to keep rangelands grazed to a point that fire danger is reduced while still maintaining a reasonable forage base.

All Both emc0299GB

696. The BLM's sage‐grouse management policies should include cooperation and collaboration with Local Working Groups and 

should be based on progress and accomplishments on private, state, and federal lands over the past 12 years.

All BLM emc0298GB

697. The RMP amendments should be consistent with existing Local Working Group plans. The challenge will be to come up with 

guidelines that are relevant and meaningful at local levels and at the same time consistent throughout the planning area.

All BLM emc0298GB

698. BLM's Sage-grouse Strategy Planning seems to be designed to delay, confuse, and avoid potential ESA listing, rather than 

applying "best available science" based measures now and in the future to lessen and stop ongoing destructive impacts from 

All Both emc0316GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-131

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

grazing, recreation, energy projects, mining, and gas and oil exploration and drilling etc..

699. For years we have observed the demise of sage steppe ecosystem conditions due to lack of adequate management and 

oversight. We have heard the BLM and the USFS promise to conserve, protect and/or restore sagebrush habitat for 

Sage-grouse and other sage-steppe obligate species, and then watched them manage public land for private and special 

interests. We see nothing wrong with the Greater Sage-grouse being listed under the ESA.

All Both emc0316GB

700. Ideally, development of a National Sage Grouse strategy would involve the development of a range of policy alternatives that 

are informed by science. In contrast, the BLM’s National Technical Team appears to be narrowing the range of policy 

alternatives, based upon blanket setback distances, NSO requirements, and seasonal restrictions. The strategy must respect 

outstanding commitments and agreements between BLM and its multiple use constituents such as leases, permits, ROWs 

and conditions of approvals for projects that have been approved by BLM. Failure to do so would only lead to litigation and 

provide a disincentive to the BLM and companies to innovate in ways that address the underlying causes of specific threats 

and that will benefit sage grouse and responsible development of oil and gas in the long run. API recommends that 

alternatives be developed which promote development and application of innovative approaches to management of oil and 

gas resources within Greater Sage-grouse habitats.

All BLM emc0346GB

701. Due to the fact that the NTT’s Report is the basis for one of the alternatives in the RMP revisions or amendments, API 

requests that BLM formally seek comments on that document apart from the RMP process. Because we recognize the 

importance of the NNT’s Report as a document that may be referenced in future BLM decisions, API offers the following 

comments specific to that Report. API also requests that BLM address the following concerns in its RMP revisions or 

amendments.

All BLM emc0346GB

702. A more potentially effective strategy for developing conservation measures (including BMPs) is to organize them in such a 

way that they address the specific cause and effect mechanisms that underlie each threat that is potentially deleterious to 

sage grouse. In this way, BMPs may be seen as a set of alternatives that can be used singly, or in combination to address 

specific threats as local circumstances require. An example of this approach is described in the text and Table 1 of Ramey, 

Brown, and Blackgoat (2011).

All BLM emc0346GB

703. We hope that the BLM will acknowledge the importance of site-specific conditions in determining the most effective and 

efficient mitigation that can be applied. For example, topography influences sound transmission, while the technology being 

employed at a production site affects all aspects of noise being generated, including time on site, staffing needed, and amount 

of truck traffic. Therefore, taking into account local conditions can increase the options available for effectively mitigating the 

effects of oil and gas development.

All BLM emc0346GB

704. There is currently no administrative mechanism at the BLM that allows the agency to track and test the effectiveness of 

previously required Best Management Practices (BMPs). Establishing such a database and making it public would provide a 

good starting point for the evaluation of any existing or newly proposed BMPs.

All BLM emc0346GB

705. Prior to new BMPs being imposed, it would be advisable for the BLM to describe why currently required BMPs re inadequate, 

as compared to new ones (such as those proposed in Appendix D). This approach would provide a more defensible scientific 

basis for any new BMPs.

All BLM emc0346GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-132 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

706. NTT’s presentation of adaptive management appears different than that utilized by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). 

For example, the NTT makes no mention of the role of stakeholders in the document, or the process by which alternative 

management actions are identified for decision making. The key elements of adaptive management in DOI guidelines include:

- Ensure stakeholder commitment to adaptive management for duration of enterprise - Identify clear, measurable, and 

agreed-upon objectives - Evaluate management effectiveness over time - Identify management actions for decision-making -

Model different benefits and costs as outputs of management through time - Design and implement a monitoring plan

All BLM emc0346GB

707. Given the recent U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s approval of the Wyoming sage grouse conservation plan, along with the 

request of officials within the Department of Interior (DOI) that other states follow this pattern to prevent a listing, it is our 

expectation that DOI and its agencies should approve a similarly driven effort within Idaho. It is important to note that 

Idaho’s terrain and sage grouse conservation management issues are much different than Wyoming’s and thus, our plan and 

our approach will also be different but it will be better suited to realistically conserving sage grouse in Idaho.

All Both emc0392GB

708. The regulations should reiterate that ecosystems, occupied habitat and sage grouse populations vary and should not be 

managed by a "one-size-fits-all" approach, but rather by an approach that allows land managers, local working groups, and 

grazing permittees to collaborate on management practices that benefit the resources affecting individual populations in 

small areas- not over the entire west-wide greater sage-grouse range. Idaho’s current sage grouse planning effort will 

recognize this type of approach and will enable the agencies’ need to manage for sage grouse, balanced with the actual needs 

of the species on the ground and the local communities.

All Both emc0392GB

709. I learned from a conservation colleague a couple months ago that a Near-Final Draft Four Rivers RMP document was 

provided to Ted Hoffman who complained in the RAC about the process, and got BLM to provide him a copy. I have 

mentioned this biased and preferential treatment repeatedly in comments and e-mails to BLM. Months have now gone by. 

The public has not seen any Draft RMP. This preferential early release of a draft document to ranchers means the following: 

1) Rancher Hoffman and the cattlemen/woolgrowers will have much more opportunity for comment - i.e. they have been 

given preferential treatment with many months head start. 2) The livestock industry will be able to use political clout to get 

provisions of the Draft that they don't like changed - before the public even has a chance to see what was written. A perfect 

example of how this all works out is the recent weak and ineffective BLM Sage Grouse Interim management IM. BLM did 

NOT provide the public an opportunity for comment, or any input. But ranching interests had an opportunity to commentin fact, the Public Land Council wrote a comment letter in response. End result: An IM that is completely ineffective in dealing 

with livestock grazing disturbance to sage-grouse and their habitats. I request that WWP be immediately provided with all 

the information Mr. Hoffman was provided with in regards to the Draft Four Rivers RMP. Mr. Hoffman didn't need to do a 

FOIA, so we don't, either. And also just to put this in perspective: Idaho BLM has been outrageously redacting page after 

page after page of what it considers "Draft" documents in FOIA responses. So I very much bet that if I were to do a FOIA for 

the document freely given by BLM to rancher Hoffman, there would be primarily big black voids, with critical pages blacked 

out as "predecisional" or some such excuse would be used to hiding critical info from the public to cover up for BLM siding 

with the livestock industry. Please let me know when we will receive this requested information. Please also enter these 

comments in the sage grouse EIS process, as it demonstrates the biased and preferential treatment BLM gives to public lands 

ranching interests. It illustrates the "Capture" of BLM by special interest groups that this process of amending RMPs will 

All BLM emc0040GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-133

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

never adequately counter. Full top to bottom reform of the agency, and leadership with conservation vision is desperately 

needed - from the Boise District on up to the highest levels.

710. Materials at the Twin Falls BLM Sage-grouse meeting had a date of February 16 for the comment period close - I had a call 

from one of our members who attended. Is the comment period going to be extended - information provided to date is 

very limited, and was not even available at earlier meetings. Much more info needs to be made available - like what do all the 

Plans to be amended actually do/require now - in regards to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat components and their 

management? The livestock grazing info provided by BLM is very deficient - and slanted towards industry.

All Both emc0050GB

711. The mapping that is on display at the public meetings on grouse is the same as what accompanied the Interim Guidance 

Memos of a couple months ago. So what this means is that these same habitat categories will be used to guide BLM actions 

over the years until the range-wide Grouse EIS process is completed.

All BLM emc0079GB

712. This also brings up the question: To what degree is the current willynilly MET tower, communication tower, livestock facility, 

springtime grazing disturbance and other habitat intrusion interfering with sage-grouse use of otherwise suitable habitats? It 

exposes another serious flaw in the whole Core model. The Core model regrettably focuses on existing leks that have been 

regularly counted - and not on sagebrush habitat presence and subsequent restoration actions or cessation of disturbances 

in these habitats. These actions could relatively rapidly make many sagebrush habitat where perhaps leks have been 

extinguished, or where birds suffer too much disturbance or lethal fences have been built, into prime or important habitats.

All BLM emc0079GB

713. The poor effort put into mapping all important habitats and thus guiding management in the interim, means that grouse use 

in many more areas will be extinguished - and more irreparable harm done. The Interim map must be immediately revised. 

NOTE: comment emc0079GB includes a ma, "Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Grazing 

Permit Renewals in the Jump Creek, Succor Creek and Cow Creek Watersheds"

All BLM emc0079GB

714. Since the sage-grouse listing petitions were filed in 2004, countless measures have been employed by the energy industry, 

private landowners, federal and state management agencies and other stakeholders to develop new science, data collection 

and analysis tools for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the sage-grouse. As such, numerous conservation programs 

have been in place for several years, and the BLM has been and continues to be involved in many of these efforts. These plans 

have resulted in an unprecedented, comprehensive effort to avoid listing the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act. 

BLM should recognize and build on these programs.

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

715. Devon urges the BLM to consider the development of a wide ranging conservation strategy for sage-grouse and sage-grouse 

habitat that has already been undertaken by western states through the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA), in which the FWS, BLM and Forest Service are cooperating agencies. As a result of these efforts, to date, nine 

states have finalized conservation plans, and local working groups are being established to carry out these plans and to 

monitor their effectiveness. The remaining states are also working toward formulating and finalizing their conservation plans.

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

716. Finally, the BLM should use the opportunity of amending its RMPs to address the concerns expressed by Judge D. Lynn 

WinmHl of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in the case entitled Western Watershed Project v. Ken 

Salazar, Case No. 08- CV-516-DLW, Memorandum Decision and Order (D. Id. Sept. 28, 2011). In the referenced case, the 

court determined that the BLM had not adequately analyzed potential impacts to sage-grouse population from both livestock 

grazing and oil and gas development on public lands. As a result of this decision, the BLM's resource management plans 

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-134 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

across much of the western United States risk additional challenge from plaintiff organizations such as the Western 

Watershed Project. Indeed, the Western Watershed Project has already indicated its intent to file litigation against the BLM 

challenging other resource management plans such as the recently released Draft Resource Management Plan for the Lander 

Resource Area in Wyoming. BLM should take the opportunity to correct any alleged deficiencies perceived by a court in 

Idaho to ensure that future litigation is less likely to succeed.

717. It is well established that NEPA only requires an agency to consider "reasonable alternatives." 40 C. F. R. § 1502.14 (2008). 

The BLM's obligation to consider alternatives is not without limitations. Courts and the Interior Board of Land Appeals 

("IBLA") have long held that "[a]lternatives that do not accomplish the purpose of an action are not reasonable and need not 

be studied in detail by the agency." Citizens' Comma to Save Our Canyons v. United States Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1030 

(10th (ir. 2002) (citations and internal punctuation omitted); Northern Ala. Envtl. Ctr., et at., 153 IBLA 253, 263 (2004). 

"NEPA does not require agencies to analyze the environmental consequences of alternatives it has in good faith rejected as 

too remote, speculative, or impractical or ineffective." Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1030-31 (internal 

punctuation omitted). When developing alternatives for the RMP amendments and accompanying EIS, the BLM must ensure 

that the alternatives analyzed are both feasible and economic. The Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") has described 

reasonable alternatives as "those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using 

common sense, rather than simply desirable." CEQ's Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 2a, 46 Fed. Reg. 18028, 18027 

(Mar. 23, 1981) (emphasis added). BLM need not analyze speculative, impractical, or uneconomic alternatives. Citizens' 

Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1030-31. For example, overly stringent restrictions or conditions of approval 

(COA) may render development uneconomic and need not be analyzed. Further, given the fact the public lands must be 

managed for multiple use including oil and gas development, and given the fact that much of the public land in the Western 

United States is currently leased for oil and gas development, alternatives that prohibit or eliminate aU oil and gas 

development on public lands are neither practical nor reasonable and need not be studied in detail by the agency.

All Both emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

718. The BLM should explain to the public, via scoping meetings and the EIS for the revised RMP amendments, that oil and gas 

development activities are not prohibited during the resource management plan process. The position that the BLM must 

suspend all management decisions while an RMP is being revised has been rejected by numerous federal courts and the IBLA. 

See ORNC Action v. Bur:eau of Land Management, 150 F.3d 1132,113941 (9th eir. 1998) (holding that neither FLPMA nor 

the applicable regulations require the BLM to institute a moratorium on activities pending completion of an EIS for an 

updated or revised RMP); Western Land Energy Project v. Dombeck, 47 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1213 (D. Ore. 1999) (same); 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 163 IBLA 14, 28 (2004); Wyoming Outdoor Council, et ai., 156 IBLA 377, 384 (2002); 

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., 124 iBLA 130, 140 (1992). The Washington Office of the BLM has issued specific 

guidance noting that the BLM is authorized to approve and analyze oil and gas projects on a site~specific basis while an RMP 

amendment is underway. "When an RMP is being amended or revised, BLM will continue to process sitespecific permits; 

sundry notices, and related authorizations on existing leases in an expeditious manner while ensuring compliance with NEPA 

and other laws, regulations, and policies." Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2001-191 , pg. 1 (August 6, 2001). 

"Actions that may appear to reduce a lessee's right to reasonably develop a lease should be cleared through the State 

Director and Regional Solicitor's Office." Id. The BLM should not limit or restrict oil and gas development during the 

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-135

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

amendment process.

719. To the extent possible, the BLM should utilize the data developed by the Wyoming State Office for the proposed, but now 

apparently abandoned, Wyoming specific amendment to the RMPs within the State of Wyoming. This process was initiated 

in May of 2010 and was, reportedly, nearing completion prior to the announcement of the national sage-grouse RMP 

amendments. See Notice of intent, 75 Fed. Reg. 30054 (May 28, 2010). The BLM in Wyoming had already prepared an 

Analysis 'of the Management Situation and other important data that can be utilized as part of this larger effort. See Summary 

of Scoping Comments (Jan. 19, 2011); Analysis of the Management Situation (August 2011).

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

720. The BLM must specifically incorporate and adopt to the maximum extent possible the sage-grouse conservation measures 

currently in place and utilized in Wyoming. The Wyoming sage-grouse Implementation Team and the Governor of Wyoming 

carefully developed the Core Area policy for sage-grouse based on the best scientific information available and in 

cooperation with operators and the WGFD. It is inappropriate to increase these timing restrictions in the BLM Land Use 

Plan. Devon encourages the BLM to modify the sage-grouse stipulations so that they are consistent with Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011-5. This will ensure consistent management of sage-grouse and habitat throughout Wyoming and reinforce that 

the State of Wyoming and the BLM are dedicated to protecting and preserving sagegrouse to prevent listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

721. As indicated by the number of decisions cited above, the purpose of the RFD Scenario continues to be a source of confusion 

and litigation. Even now appeals are pending before the IBLA and federal courts across the nation in which groups opposed 

to continued energy development are attempting to argue the RFD Scenario as a cap to preclude further domestic energy 

development. Thus, the BLM must clearly explain to the public that the RFD Scenario is not a cap or limitation on future 

development. In the most recent published decision from the IBLA regarding the RFD Scenario, the IBLA unequivocally 

determined that the RFD Scenario is not, and cannot be used as, a limitation on future oil and gas development. "While an 

important tool in the land use planning process, RFD scenarios do not constitute fixed or maximum limits on development 

under FLPMA such that exceeding them constitutes a violation of that statute." Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, et al., 

1741BLA 1,11 (2008).

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

722. In order to prevent future litigation and appeals, the BLM must include language in the revised RMPs describing the purpose 

of the RFD Scenario and the fact that the RFD Scenario is not a planning decision or limitation on future oll and gas 

development. Instruction Memorandum 2004-089, Policy for Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil 

and Gas (Jan. ·16, 2004). For example, the BLM could expressly adopt and incorporate the position the Secretary of the 

Interior, through the IBLA, has expressed regarding the RFD Scenario in a recent published opinion:

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

723. Noting that an RFD scenario is an analytical tool, we expressly rejected both the idea that it establishes a point past which

further exploration and development is prohibited, and the assumption that the underlying environmental analysis has no 

validity beyond the RFD scenario. In rejecting that assertion, we implicitly agreed with BLM that an RFD scenario is neither 

a planning decision nor the No Action Alternative in the NEPA document.

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

724. When developing the RFD Scenario for the Sage-Grouse RMP Amendments, the BLM should utilize the existing RFD 

Scenarios developed for recently completed RMPs in the western states. In Wyoming and Utah, for example, the BLM has 

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-136 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

recently completed RMPs in Pinedale, Kemmerer, Casper, and Rawlins, Wyoming and Vernal, Moab, and Price, Utah and is 

preparing revised RMPs in Buffalo and Lander, Wyoming. Because the RFD Scenarios for these plans were recently prepared 

with significant public input and the expertise from those with local knowledge, BLM should utilize and incorporate this data 

to the greatest extent possible. Further, given the timeframes involved with the proposed plans amendments for the 

protection of sage-grouse, it would be virtually impossible for the BLM to prepare adequate information to prepare a new 

RFD Scenario for the huge amount of federal lands involved.

725. We would like to compliment the BLM for its efforts to conserve the GSG in order to avoid a potential endangered species 

listing in 20 15. However, we are concerned that the environmental impact statement (EIS) and RMPs may not be finalized 

soon enough in order to substantially impact the USFWS's decision. With that in mind, we recommend that the BLM 

streamline the process to the extent possible, enhance habitat immediately, and utilize existing models wherever possible.

All Both emc0114RM

726. Comment #1 - RMPs already include GSG conservation measures. It should be noted that many of the RMPs (for example, 

the Green River and Kenunerer RMPs) already contain conservation measures such as seasonal stipulations and disturbance 

buffer requirements. GSG conservation measures are certainly not new to BLM planning requirements. Furthermore, BLM 

interim policy indicates that field specific conservation stipulations are already being included in new and modified 

authorizations, so in effect, increasing conservation efforts are already underway without having gone through the public 

review process.

All Both emc0114RM

727. Comment #2 - RMP revisions should be consistent with state agency requirements. Wherever possible, the RMP revisions 

should parallel the Wyoming Executive Order 201 1-5 (EO). The EO was developed in consultation with the BLM, USFWS, 

Wyoming Game and Fish, local and state sage-grouse working groups, conservation groups, and the public. The EO provides 

a model which other agencies should follow in order to conserve GSG, because it is already established as an effective 

program. In fact, and as noted in the EO, on April 17,2008, the Office of the Governor of Wyoming requested that the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service review the "Core Population Area" strategy to determine if it was a "sound policy that should be 

moved forward" and on May 7, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded that the "core population area strategy, 

as outlined in the Implementation Team's correspondence to the Governor, is a sound framework for a policy by which to 

conserve greater sage-grouse in Wyoming"; and on November 10,2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service again confirmed 

that "This long-term, science-based vision for the conservation of greater sage-grouse has set the stage for similar 

conservation efforts across the species range," and that "the Core Population Area Strategy for the greater sage-grouse 

provides an excellent model for meaningful conservation of sage-grouse if fully supported and implemented." I! would seem 

ill-advised to implement anything but a program that is already endorsed by the USFWS at this late stage.

All Both emc0114RM

728. If differing requirements are enacted by multiple agencies, it will detract from the conservation effort. Instruction 

Memorandum 2012-044, ELM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy, directs BLM staff to limit 

anthropogenic disturbances to less than 3% of total sage-grouse habitat, regardless of ownership. This is similar to BLM's 

December 21 , 2011 A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures by the Sage Grouse National

Technical Team which suggests, "Manage priority sage-grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover 

less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership." In contrast, the Wyoming EO establishes a 5% 

disturbance threshold for anthropogenic disturbances. The 5% disturbance threshold would then trigger mitigation offsets

All Both emc0114RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-137

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

but it would not prohibit the project completely. BLM has specifically noted "regardless of ownership" which implies that the 

3% standard will be applied to projects that involve COlUlected federal actions. For projects that only involve private lands 

andlor mineral the BLM has no oversite responsibility. By enacting multiple limits, project proponents may likely choose 

projects based on private ownership to avoid BLM involvement and the result will simply be more disturbances on private 

lands, thus increasing the disturbance density in certain areas that may actually be more detrimental to the GSG habitat. If the 

BLM enacts different disturbance limits than those already in use in the EO, then the BLM should study and publish the 

potential impacts associated with this checkerboard disturbance effect. (Note: Western U.S. land ownership is 52% BLM, 8% 

USFS, 31 % Private, 5% State, 4% BIA and other Federal; 75 FR 13910).

729. A unified approach will be advantageous in order to effectively monitor results across the range. It will be impossible to 

effectively determine which management agency has had positive results on GSG population densities due to varying 

stipulations which will be administered differently on federal versus private or state lands. It would appear to be in the best 

interest of the various range management agencies to develop consistent stipulations, conservations practices, and 

monitoring protocols for this reason.

All Both emc0114RM

730. The use of consistent terminology will enhance conservation efforts. The Wyoming EO established limited but effective 

terminology that has been successfully utilized for two years. This includes simple terminology like "core area", "DDCT", 

"disturbance density", and "connectivity" which are being utilized and are well understood. We realize that the BLM is trying 

to come to some agreement internally on what terminology to use, but there are so many different concepts that it is difficult 

to determine exactly what is intended. For example, various BLM documents such as lM No. WY-2010-012, lM No. WY 

2010-013, USDI BLM 2010a, USDI BLM 2010b, WO lM-No. 2012-044 refer to several concepts such as "Preliminary Priority

Habitat", "Preliminary General Habitat", "Key Habitat Map," etc. At this point in time it is very difficult to detennine BLM's 

intent in this conservation effort because there are so many different terms and multiple documents that utilize varying 

terms. We encourage the BLM and other conservation agencies to adopt the tenninology utilized in the EO for this reason.

All Both emc0114RM

731. Comment #3 - Decisions and monitoring sbould be based on good science As noted in the Notice of Intent (FR Vol 76, No. 

237, Friday December 9, 2011, page 770 11 , bullet #8) "The BLM and FS will endeavor to use current scientific information, 

research, technologies, and results of inventory, monitoring, and coordination to detemnne appropriate strategies that will 

enhance or restore greater sage-grouse habitats." Likewise, Bullet #18 states " State Game and Fish agencies ' greater 

sage-grouse data and expertise will be utilized to the fullest extent practicable in making management detenninations on 

Federal lands." BLM's A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures, December 21, 20 11 states "The 

standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible monitoring approach is vital if BLM and other 

conservation partners are to use the resulting infomlation to guide implementation of conservation activities (Naugle and 

Walker 2007)." We agree with these commitments to utilize the most up-to-date and accurate science and data in order to 

make informed decisions on this important issue. The use of common databases (State managed databases in some cases) 

wherever possible will ensure the use of the most up-to-date and accurate information for making decisions. With this in 

n1ind, there should be no need for duplicative databases across multiple agencies. The BLM notes that 68 land use planning 

units have sage-grouse habitat; this fact alone indicates the need for consistent data gathering mechanisms. The official 

Wyon1ing sage-grouse lek database is maintained by the WGFD in accordance with the Umbrella Memorandum of 

All Both emc0114RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-138 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Understanding between the WGFD and BLM (WGFD and USDI BLM 1990); we highly suggest the use of this type of 

resource across the land use planning units. Furthermore, the BLM and other agencies should agree upon consistent data

needs and collection protocols in order to ensure unifonnity in data gathering and reporting across the multiple planning 

units. To bolster this statement, it would not make sense to report lek data (or any other data) in one land use planning area 

versus another if the data is not unifonnly collected and reported for comparison purposes across the range.

732. Comment #4 - Avoid overarcbing regulatory mecbanisms sucb as "significant portion of range" The Federal Register Volume 

76, No. 237, page 77009 under Supplemental Infonnation mentions "The BLM and FS intend to evaluate the adequacy of 

sage-grouse conservation measures in RMPs and selected LMPs, and consider conservation measures, as appropriate, in 

proposed RMP and selected LMP amendments and/or revisions throughout the range of the greater sage-grouse." It is 

interesting that the same Federal Register included the Draft Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase "Significant Portion of Its 

Range" in the Endangered Species Act 's Definitions of "Endangered Species" and "Threatened Species" under the Notice of 

draft policy. Likewise, the second bullet in the Bureau of Land Management National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 

Charter, August 22, 20 II, states "oversee the development of consistent regulatory mechanisms across the range of the 

greater sage-grouse." If the USFWS and the BLM intend to review the status of the GSG based on the entire range (excluding 

California, Nevada and Washington), then perhaps changing each of the distinct land use plans (RMPs and LMPs) is not the 

proper regulatory mechanism and those plans should be congregated into one master resource management plan. It would 

seem that one master plan would be a much more effective mechanism, versus modifying 68 unique plans. If this is the case, 

then the award winning and USFWS endorsed WY EO would provide an excellent model to use as the basis for a regional

management plan.

All Both emc0114RM

733. Comment #5 - RMP revisions should not "ban" any use completely BLM's A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures, December 21 , 20 II, provides an insight to BLM's stance regarding future development of minerals 

in relation to the GSG conservation effort. For both Coal and Non-energy Leasable Minerals the BLM states for Priority 

sage-grouse habitat areas to: "Close priority habitat. .. To mineral leasing. This includes not pennitting any new leases to 

expand an existing mine" (pp. 25). This is clearly a ban on any new mining leases in priority habitat areas. If this is truly BLM's 

intent, then this same approach should apply to any uses, including recreation, grazing, or any other activity that may 

potentially disturb the habitat. For example, in the case of an underground mine, that has limited surface impacts, why should 

there be a ban on new mineral leases, especially if those surface disturbances are less in comparison to other potential 

disturbance projects such as recreational activities or even prescribed fires? We recommend that the BLM simply apply 

consistent habitat conservation approaches across the multiple uses that it oversees and not apply specific restriction to 

certain industries, Wyoming's EO provides a good approach to disturbance limits for all activities, including the use of the 

DDCT which is used to detennine if disturbance activities are acc~ptable (r~gardl~ss of disturbance type).

All Both emc0114RM

734. Comment #6 - Focus on efforts that conserve and enhance habitat, today Ifwe are to avoid a listing in 2015 (about 2 Y, 

years from now), conservations efforts will need to be on the ground and functioning as soon as possible. BLM is in the 

beginning stages of scoping efforts which will modify the RMPs for new habitat conservation standards. BLM intends to have 

the RMPs modified by the end of2014. Will this paperwork exercise be enough to convince the USFWS to not list the GSG? 

The RMPs will likely be just published in time for the USFWS review. However, little to no ground conservation efforts will 

All Both emc0114RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-139

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

have occurred from now until 2015 under BLM's purview. We realize that NEPA requires due process and public review 

however, in the interim we recommend that the BLM (in Wyoming at a minimum) simply adopt the Wyoming EO. This will 

result in consistent disturbance limitations across the range, consistent data gathering, consultation with WYGF, consistent 

use of the DDCT, consistent stipulations, and will result in conservation efforts immediately. Additionally, we encourage the 

BLM and FS to focus on projects to enhance habitat wherever possible in an effort to show on-the-ground improvements to 

the USFWS before 2015. These enhancements could include a multitude of projects or range management techniques; 

including but not limited to the following: restrictions to prescribed burns (such as the - 10,000 acre burn that is planned for 

southern Wyoming to improve mule deer habitat including large sage brush vegetation areas; see the Rock Springs Rocket 

Miner, ELM High Desert District Plans Spring Prescribed Fires, 3/20/12), approval of new BLM seed mixes that enhance 

sagebrush or other shrub and forb mixes, allow grazing management changes that enhance habitat (such as timing to assist 

with noxious weed or cheatgrass eradication through holistic grazing techniques), working with the local pest management 

agencies in order to eradicate West Nile virus sources, raven control, reduce surface disturbances by considering alternative 

BLM road standards (allow two track roads versus full BLM road standards where it makes sense), and reduce vegetation 

removal requirements for right-of-way corridors where possible. Additionally. the agencies should support conservation

projects and/or agreements wherever possible in order to enhance habitat even in private areas.

735. The following discussion and comments includes a summary of the existing regulatory mechanisms related to surface coal 

mining that are already in place to provide protections for the greater sage grouse as well as a focus on several of the specific

elements, research studies and on-going achievements of PPROs voluntary approach to cooperative conservation. For more 

than a decade, PPRO has taken the lead to partner with private landowners, federal, state, local agencies and others in the

energy industry in a significant and extensive voluntary ecosystem-based, landscapescale program to develop and implement 

conservation measures for the greater sage grouse and other species of concern in the PRB in northeastern Wyoming. One 

of the main goals of this initiative is to preclude the need to list these species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

All Both emc0122RM

736. The following information briefly describes many of the existing regulatory mechanisms designed to protect and mitigate 

impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat during the planning, leasing, permitting, operation and reclamation of surface coal

mines. The following response by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its November 10, 2010 review letter to the State of 

Wyoming (attached) concerning the refined core population area strategy developed and revised by the Governor.s Sage 

Grouse Implementation Team is important and relevant to the more detailed discussion below. "Your third specific 

question asked if permitting pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) is adequate to protect 

sage-grouse in core areas. The provisions for conservation of Federal trust species, including candidates such as Greater 

sage-grouse, under SMCRA and its implementing regulations, are sufficient for conservation of this species."

All Both emc0122RM

737. PPRO respectfully requests that the BLM and USFS allocate appropriate resources and commit to working with the Thunder 

Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association to develop a companion Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) to the 

Association‟ s final draft Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA). The CCA is needed to address 

activities in northeastern Wyoming where mixed federal/private/state landownership patterns occur and/or where there is 

a federal nexus for permitted land use activities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published “Guidance on Using Existing 

Tools to Expand Cooperative Conservation for Candidate Species on Mixed Federal and Non-Federal Lands” on September 

All Both emc0122RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-140 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

8, 2008 (attached) which describes how this can be accomplished. The "Introduction" section of this document states: "The 

approach is applicable to intermingled surface lands, as well as "mixed estate" lands where the surface is in non-Federal 

ownership but the subsurface is Federal (e.g. managed for energy/mineral leasing), or vice versa." It is particularly important 

that a final draft of the CCA be completed prior to the end of 2012 in order to undergo final processing by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service so that the Association can proceed forward to sign up participants and develop Certificates of Inclusion 

which will detail individual commitments necessary for coverage under the combined CCAA-CCA. This timing should also

allow the BLM and USFS to acknowledge and incorporate this important and substantial initiative on behalf of the greater 

sage grouse and other species of concern native to northeastern Wyoming in applicable Resource Management Plan 

revisions.

738. In April of2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published its listing decision for Greater Sage-grouse as 

"Warranted but Precluded." The inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to conserve sagegrouse and its habitats on federal 

lands was identified as a major threat to the bird. Along with that determination, the Service identified incorporation of 

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures into BLM's Resource Management Plans (RMPs) as a regulatory mechanism 

that would serve to conserve sage-grouse and its habitats. In formulating any amendments and revisions to RMPs, the issue 

of addressing mixed estate ownership must be adequately and fairly address with input from mineral owners.

All Both emc0125RM

739. Conservation measures must be coordinated and consistent with the objectives set by State wildlife management agencies. 

Conservation measures must be consistent with the underlying laws that give rise to the RMPs. The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) requires public lands be managed for multi-use including mineral development. 43 U.S.C. § 

1701(a)(12). Therefore, conservation measures that would exclude mineral development or so stringently limit such 

development are prohibited by law. Anadarko raises this issue because of language in the Report that suggests BLM may seek 

conservation measures that go beyond conservation and protection of the Greater Sage-grouse.l FLPMA provides that land 

be managed as habitat for wildlife, but also for mineral development. Id. Both may be achieved so long as an equitable balance 

persists in management decisions. Anadarko therefore emphasizes the need for BLM to include mineral owners in 

management discussions of conservation measures so this balance is achieved. Any population restoration measures 

considered must be carefully analyzed to the extent such measures will exclude other uses of the public lands.

All Both emc0125RM

740. Anadarko requests that the Report be revised to provide for conservation measures that are consistent with State 

population management objectives and not for restoration of the species.2 An alternative, wherein the Report serves as its 

backbone, may be considered, but it should be eliminated from detailed analysis as it is based on a basic policy objective that 

is it inconsistent with the State's population management objectives. Anadarko believes BLM's purpose and need must be 

limited to supporting the State's popUlation management goals for "maintenance and enhancement" and not restoration. 

Seeking to include an alternative based on restoration of a species is not an alternative that warrants a detailed analysis.

All Both emc0125RM

741. BLM must tier to Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenarios (RFDs) from approved RMPs and completed RFDs for 

RMPs currently undergoing revision. RFDs must reflect each individual planning unit rather than the Eastern Region or a state 

as a whole. This is important as it will allow socio-economic analyses to occur at local or community scale. Additionally, 

RFDs must be revised if new technologies and other information warrant. Given past development trends and rapid 

developments in technologies, Anadarko believes that many portions of its lands could be successfully accessed for mineral 

All Both emc0125RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-141

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

development that was unattainable only a few years back. New technologies affecting availability of mineral resources must 

be reflected in predictions of foreseeable development.

742. Anadarko understands that the land use planning effort will playa crucial role in future ESA listing determinations for the 

sage-grouse. Conservation of sage-grouse habitat is important but it must be balanced with a continued ability to develop 

our nation's resources. BLM has indicated in its Report "a commitment to new paradigm in managing the sagebrush 

landscape. It is one that is based on collaborative efforts among private, state and tribal partners." While the goal of that 

collaborative effort will be to conserve sagebrush communities and landscapes, the restrictions placed on use of federal land

must be the minimum necessary to meet that goal (Section 363 Energy Policy Act of2005). Anadarko looks forward to 

participating in a collaborative manner.

All Both emc0125RM

743. The Greater Sage-grouse is an important component of the history, economy and culture of the state of Wyoming. It is vital 

that the resulting conservation measures for the Greater Sage-grouse eliminate the need for federal listing under the 

Endangered Species Act and at the same time allow for responsible energy development on our public lands. In order to 

eliminate the need for federal listing a combination of regulatory mechanisms, habitat improvements, and 

scientifically-defendable adaptive management principals must be adopted in coordination with land managers, wildlife 

agencies, industry, and the public.

All Both emc0128RM

744. The April 2010 listing decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) demonstrates that historic efforts to conserve 

sage-grouse and their habitat have failed. Additionally, changes in management strategies need to address these failures to 

prevent a listing when USFWS reconsiders the species’ status in 2015.

All Both emc0128RM

745. Both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) play a crucial role in sage-grouse 

recovery. As land managers, the BLM and USFS are in habitat protections, the management decisions decided in the 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LMP) revisions and amendments will be a determining factor in the recovery of sage-grouse. Maintaining and increasing 

sage-grouse populations need to be the guiding principle behind the revision of these plans. Additionally, cooperation 

between land managers across state lines need to be a major component of the planning efforts to protect crucial habitat 

across state lines including migration corridors and maintaining habitat connectivity.

All Both emc0128RM

746. WWF supports the creation of a consistent and scientifically defendable plan across the sage-grouse’s range. Wyoming has 

been the leader in taking a proactive approach to protect the sage-grouse. Wyoming’s Core Area strategy stands as a model 

that brought together committed stakeholders for the protection of sage-grouse. In order for USFWS to preclude listing of 

the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act it must be determined that science-based conservation measures have 

effectively addressed threats to the sage-grouse and that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to ensure those action 

measures occur. In July 2009 former USFWS Field Supervisor Brian Kelly identified the Core Strategy as science driven, 

outcome-based and an adaptive approach. Further Kelly recognized the strategy as a useful framework that could provide 

important regulatory mechanism.1 Additionally, in a letter to Governor Matt Mead, USFWS Field Supervisor Mark 

Sattelberg wrote, "The Service believes the Executive Order [core-strategy] can result in the long-term conservation of the 

Greater sage-grouse and thus reduce the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If fully implemented, we believe the Executive Order can provide the conservation program necessary 

All Both emc0128RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-142 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

to achieve your goal of precluding listing of the Greater sage-grouse in Wyoming." (Sattelberg 2011) 2 Wyoming’s core 

strategy should be used as a model for other states when developing their alternatives. The core strategy is grounded in 

science and at the same time garners bipartisan support and has successfully brought together multiple stakeholders.

747. A tremendous amount of time, effort, and money has been used in the development of Wyoming’s, scientifically grounded, 

Core Area Strategy. This should be recognized in the conservation strategies offered by BLM and the USFS. Wyoming began 

efforts to protect the sage-grouse with the signing of the first Core Strategy Executive Order in August 2008 and since then 

have continued to refine the strategy. Wyoming should not be punished for BLM’s delayed response to addressing 

sage-grouse nationally. In its finding, USFWS found BLM and the USFS to not be "fully implementing the regulatory 

mechanisms available to conserve greater sage-grouse on their lands (USFWS 2010)." Wyoming should be rewarded for 

their effort and not burdened by additional regulations. USFWS, BLM, USFS, and Wyoming should meet at a minimum 

annually before USFWS’s reconsideration of the sagegrouse’s status. If it is determined during these meetings that 

Wyoming’s current Core Strategy is not providing sufficient protections to the greater sage-grouse then Wyoming can begin 

implementing the more stringent protections recommended in the National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures 

by the BLM Sage-grouse National Technical Team.

All Both emc0128RM

748. The BLM and USFS will need support of agencies and stakeholders to achieve success: USFWS, state game and fish agencies, 

sportsmen, conservation and wildlife groups, private landowners, industry partners, federal permittees, and elected officials. 

The alternatives offered should include a plan for actively engaging diverse stakeholders. WWF recommends that the BLM 

and USFS look to Wyoming’s sagegrouse working groups for guidance in engagement.

All Both emc0128RM

749. WWF’s recommends that alternatives put forth by BLM be broad enough in scope that each state is afforded the flexibility 

to move forward with their own core strategy. The state wildlife managers contain the on-the-ground knowledge of the 

issues contributing to sage-grouse population declines in their respective state and should be provided the opportunity to 

tailor specific recommendations to address those declines. If states are unwilling or unable to draft their own core strategy 

the BLM’s Sage-grouse National Technical Team, A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures, 

recommendations should be adopted.

All Both emc0128RM

750. As conservation efforts proceed it is important that the process is both open and transparent. The agencies should maintain 

a publicly available consolidated database of relevant data and information including:  Preliminary Priority and General 

Habitat data and maps o Seasonal habitats o Priority habitats across state borders o Important corridors and transition 

habitat  Maps of valid existing rights Modeling information  Updated research A plan for communication between 

all stakeholders should be included in all alternatives. In each alternative a timeline for posting information within the 

database needs to be included for the public to have access to the information in a timely manner.

All Both emc0128RM

751. Excluding the ‘no action’ alternative, all alternatives must provide strong protections for the recovery of the Greater 

Sage-grouse. The alternatives must be grounded in sound-science and address the issues most threatening to the 

sage-grouse’s recovery. The adopted alternative will only be as strong as the land agencies’ commitment to abide by the 

regulations; the conservation measures will not aide in the recovery of sage-grouse if exceptions are allowed.

All Both emc0128RM

752. Declines in sage-grouse populations throughout the 20th Century have been linked primarily due to habitat degradation and 

conversion (MICHAEL A. SCHROEDER 2004). USFWS has recognized habitat loss as the leading factor in the loss of 

All Both emc0128RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-143

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse3. In the Eastern Region expanding energy development has the potential to continue to degrade the sagebrush 

steppe and prevent sage-grouse recovery. One alternative should be guided by the principles outlined in the Wyoming 

sage-grouse core strategy: see State of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5.

753. Protect priority habitat from large scale disturbances: transmission lines, oil and gas wells, wind turbines, graded roads, etc. All Both emc0128RM

754. Incorporate seasonal stipulations into each alternative and offer no exceptions. o Allow for activity from July 1 to March 14 

within core but outside of lek perimeters. Wyoming Core strategy gives a 0.6 buffer around leks. O In winter 

concentration areas exploration and development should only be allowed March 14 to December 1

All Both emc0128RM

755. Recovery of Greater sage-grouse populations is vital for the health of the sage-brush steppe and the economy and social 

fabric of the west. The state of Wyoming’s Core Area strategy was created to prevent the listing of the Greater sage-grouse 

under the ESA. USFWS has recognized the core area strategy as a viable management tool. WWF supports no additional 

restrictions for Wyoming unless Greater sagegrouse populations start to decline in great number. WWF encourages the 

USFS and BLM to use the core strategy as a guiding principle.

All Both emc0128RM

756. First, we would like to call attention to BLM’s stated position and goals in their printed handouts at recent scoping meetings:

1. “Maintaining and restoring sagebrush landscapes on public lands is the BLM’s primary means of conserving sage grouse 

populations.” 2. “Sagebrush ecosystems are home to a surprisingly abundant number of wildlife species that depend on this 

complex and often fragile ecosystem type. If sage grouse populations are in trouble, it means other sagebrush-dependent 

species are, too. We consider our work critical to help all species that depend on sagebrush habitat.” 2 3. “Maintaining and 

restoring sagebrush landscapes on public lands is the BLM’s primary mans of conserving sage-grouse populations.” 4. “While 

this extensive planning process is underway, the BLM also is developing conservation measures and policy recommendations 

for the interim protection of sagebrush habitat.” We agree with these goals and believe they should be integrated into the 

purpose and need statement for the plan amendments. All alternatives considered should be designed to meet these goals 

and objectives.

All BLM emc0129RM

757. It is our belief that local citizens working together to resolve local issues offers the best chance of success. Farmers and 

ranchers have played a vital role in local working groups that have been formed to provide local strategies for protecting 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat. These voluntary local groups bring all interested stakeholders together, develop 

community-based solutions in response to discrete and unique greater sagegrouse conditions, and provide the 

on-the-ground work to implement their recommendations. The local working group model is a template for how 

endangered species issues should be addressed. Federal agencies should defer to those local working groups that are on the 

path toward achieving results and should not interfere with or conflict with the work of such groups. Any draft EIS or 

Environmental Assessment should identify any state or local working groups in their project areas and the work they are 

doing for sage grouse conservation.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

758. Clarity of Purpose and Assurances We question what assurances BLM and FS can provide that their efforts will be sufficient 

to remove the greater sage-grouse from the ESA candidate species list, the stated reason for this NOI. Our concern is that,

while the greater sage-grouse conservation efforts will be made by the BLM and the FS, responsibility for determining 

whether the greater sage-grouse will be listed under the ESA lies with a different agency, the FWS. To that end, we suggest 

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-144 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

that BLM and FS closely coordinate with FWS to ensure the adequacy of the regulatory mechanisms, so that their efforts 

have a greater probability of leading to the removal of the greater sage-grouse from the ESA candidate species list

759. We also seek clarification as to why certain areas were excluded from these planning efforts. The NOI applies to all areas 

within the range of the greater sage-grouse except the Mono Lake population of California-Nevada and the Washington 

state population, “which will be addressed through other planning efforts.” Yet, the NOI does not indicate why these 

populations are excluded, nor does it describe what those additional planning efforts might be. Do the agencies consider 

either or both of these areas to be distinct population segments that might be separately listed under the ESA? Only the FWS 

can determine distinct population segments, and only after public notice and comment. Distinct population segment status 

has not been proposed for either population. Why are these areas treated differently, and what “other planning efforts” are 

being considered?

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

760. EIS and SEIS Development and Subsequent RMP/LMP Revisions We acknowledge that this effort calls for the creation of a 

Programmatic EIS (PEIS) to analyze broad alternative strategies to protect greater sage-grouse habitat throughout the west. 

However, we would urge BLM and the FS to reject a strategy which utilizes that PEIS to implement broad National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses to be followed on a local basis. We believe the more effective course would be 

to use the PEIS as a guideline to conduct local analyses. This approach will account for the unique habitat conditions and

management considerations for each local area, in lieu of a “one-size-fits-all” NEPA analysis. Such a “onesize- fits-all” NEPA 

analysis, which purports to be adequate for the entire greater sage-grouse population, is in fact an ineffective way to analyze 

alternatives that will enhance that population. This sort of analysis only belabors the process and hinders on-the-ground 

conservation efforts to protect greater sage-grouse habitat.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

761. As indicated in the NOI, “The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be limited to making land use planning decisions 

specific to the conservation of greater sage-grouse habitats.” We believe that the EISs and SEISs should analyze and disclose 

how greater sage-grouse management will impact all established multiple uses, including properly managed livestock grazing, 

in existing land use plans.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

762. In creating RMP/LMP amendments, priority mitigation credit should be allowed to resource users who contribute time, 

work and funds to projects and programs that benefit the greater sage-grouse. Any RMP/LMP amendment to address greater 

sage-grouse conservation should leave enough flexibility to allow for alternative actions, the absence of which could actually 

prevent conservation instead of enhancing the species and habitat.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

763. Sage-Grouse National Technical Team Report as an Alternative On Dec. 21, 2011, the Sage-Grouse National Technical 

Team (NTT) issued a report titled, A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. We are concerned 

that the NTT report did not include input from any affected stakeholders or interdisciplinary experts aside from state and 

federal scientists and specialists, ignores regional variances in greater sage-grouse needs, is not a comprehensive 

representation of the literature and research surrounding livestock grazing, and has not been scientifically peer reviewed for

accuracy. While the report briefly mentions livestock grazing’s role in reducing fine fuels and states that “proper livestock 

management...can assist in meeting sage-grouse habitat objectives,” it fails to recognize that grazing is in fact a key 

contributor to greater sage-grouse habitat conservation. It omits the positive impacts of grazing, without which greater 

sage-grouse habitat would suffer greatly in the West. As such, we do not believe it should be considered as an alternative in 

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-145

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

EISs and SEISs in its current form. The many contributions of grazing and ranching, which are largely ignored or understated 

in the NTT report, include: • Preservation of open space; • Noxious weed and invasive species eradication and containment;

• Production of forb growth that is preferred by greater sage-grouse to non-grazed areas; • Wildfire prevention and 

controlled burn efforts; • Development of wildlife watering sources, including placement of bird ladders in troughs; and • 

Predator control.

764. Other problems with the NTT report include: • Its failure to address the work accomplished by local working groups or the 

pivotal role they should continue to play in greater sage-grouse conservation. • The undue emphasis it places on potential 

climate change. While climate is always changing, the nascent state of climate science makes modeling and predictions 

impossible, and this policy emphasis thus has the potential to result in overly restrictive land management decisions. • A 

measure that states that new water developments would only be authorized “when priority sagegrouse habitat would 

benefit from the development,” a breaching of privately owned water rights. • A measure that allows for the retirement of 

grazing permits in priority sage-grouse areas, which is currently prohibited by law. The report goes so far as to direct 

planners to “identify the specific allotment(s) where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is potentially beneficial.” We 

object to the suggestion that grazing is at odds with greater sage-grouse habitat conservation and adamantly oppose any 

proposal that would allow for “voluntary” retirement of grazing permits. Such aberration from federal statute would put at 

risk our members’ ability to stay in business, thereby threatening the open spaces which they own and/or manage and which 

constitute vast areas of greater sage-grouse habitat.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

765. Flexibility in Decision Making There are inherent disadvantages of inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” standards. An adaptive, 

case-by-case approach will ensure that efforts and resources expended in the name of greater sage-grouse conservation are

well spent. Ecosystems vary; site potential, plant communities, environmental influences, precipitation patterns and plant 

production and vigor are highly variable and cannot be appropriately managed by single-source standards and guidelines. The 

regulations should give flexibility to land managers. Research conducted in the Great Basin has indicated that the greater 

sage-grouse should be managed according to the needs of individual populations and that range-wide measures are not 

appropriate (Launchbaugh, et al. 2007). According to Stiver et al. (2006), “strategies for addressing potential effects of 

grazing on greater sagegrouse must be developed at the regional, and perhaps more effectively, local levels (and coordinated

regionally).” It would thus be impractical, ineffective and detrimental to the greater sage-grouse for the agencies to ignore 

variations between individual populations by conducting a NEPA analysis beyond its cumulative impact zone.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

766. The NOI also states: “The BLM and FS will consider a range of reasonable alternatives, including appropriate management 

prescriptions that focus on the relative values of resources while contributing to the conservation of the greater sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse habitat.” Alternatives should be developed and adopted according to impacts on other multiple uses. In 

management decisions, those least restrictive to multiple-use activities should be given priority consideration. Plan flexibility 

for case-by-case decisions will allow modifications as needed.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

767. Additionally, the NOI states: “The most current approved BLM and FS corporate spatial data will be supported by current 

metadata and will be used to ascertain greater sage-grouse habitat extent and quality. Data will be consistent with the 

principles of the Information Quality Act of 2000.” All analysis, data and decisions, including substantiation of cumulative 

impacts for revisions of EISs, SEISs, RMPs and LMPs, must comply with the Federal Data Quality Act (Information Quality Act 

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-146 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of 2000).

768. First and foremost, we are concerned with the lack of public input involved in PPH and PGH designations. BLM IM No. 

2012-044 states that PPH and PGH areas are to be “identified by the BLM in coordination with respective state wildlife 

agencies.” BLM’s inclusion of state Game and Fish Departments in this process does little, if anything, to mitigate our 

concerns. We believe that the designation process would greatly benefit from public input, and that the Administrative 

Procedures Act (APA) requires that public notice and opportunity for public comment be provided before special 

protection areas may be designated on federal lands. Not only that, we believe that owners of private lands intermingled with 

federal lands should be given notice and the opportunity to participate in the identification and classification of PPH and PGH 

areas that affect them. Furthermore, we believe PPH and PGH identification and classification should be peer reviewed by 

technical experts outside of the agencies.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

769. Ranchers’ ability to graze livestock on BLM and FS managed lands is critical to many of our Western counties and rural 

economies. Thus, local and county governments should play an active role in land use planning. The NOI states, “The BLM 

and FS will coordinate and communicate with state, local and tribal governments to ensure that the BLM and FS consider 

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

opportunities for state, local and tribal governments to comment on the development of amendments or revisions.” We 

agree that local, state, and tribal governments should be granted full cooperating agency status when requested, and that the 

federal agencies should coordinate (when requested) with all existing local plans, as required by NEPA and other federal 

statutes. “Cooperating agency status” is defined under NEPA and Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) statute and

regulation, and is granted to any agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 

CFR 1501.6). Any tribe or federal, state or local government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating 

agency by agreement with the lead (federal) agency. “Coordination” is required under NEPA (and other federal statutes) 

when local land use plans exist and local government agencies request coordination with federal agencies. Coordination is 

the process by which local and federal government agencies harmonize planning and management actions to the extent 

possible under existing laws. All local governments that have legally applied for and followed statutorily mandated 

procedures to obtain cooperative agency and coordination status should be granted that status. Abiding by the cooperating 

agency and/or coordination processes will help ensure that: • The federal agencies timely and completely share all data with 

cooperators/coordinators, and that preliminary and final decisions in EISs/SEISs are timely and completely reported to

cooperating/coordinating agencies and the public. • The federal agencies coordinate to adopt and adhere to state and local 

plans for greater sage-grouse management to the greatest extent possible. Any changes or modifications in RMPs/LMPs will 

include the input of the cooperating and coordinating agencies involved in the creation of the RMPs/LMPs. • The federal 

agencies divulge and explain any deviation from state and local plans. • When available, all data used in RMP/LMP amendments 

is primarily collected from local and state data sources. This will include “priority mapping,” which shall consist of areas of 

actual greater sage-grouse use. • A methodology for monitoring is defined and followed so that individuals at local and state 

levels may provide data. • RMPs/LMPs may be amended readily according to the monitoring data acquired.

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

770. Thus, BLM and USFS must be mindful that their primary responsibility is to manage the lands according to this multiple use 

mandate. The agencies are not conservation entities and cannot ignore their statutory obligations. As the U.S. Court of 

All Both emc0378GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-147

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held, in a case involving USFS, “The national forests, unlike national parks, are not wholly 

dedicated to recreational and environmental values." Of course, in carrying out their responsibilities, federal land 

management agencies are required to comply with the full suite of environmental laws designed to protect the nation’s soils, 

lands, air and water. Energy and mineral interests wishing to undertake activities on public lands must comply with the Clean 

Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, National Environmental Policy Act, etc. In addition, 

minerals face additional scrutiny. For example, coal mining projects must meet the requirements of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), a soup-to-nuts regulatory framework covering all aspects of the mining process, 

from exploration and leasing, to reclamation, to the eventual release of reclamation performance bonds.

771. IM 2012-044 directs BLM field staff to strongly consider the conservation measures and recommendations described in the 

NTT Report. Unfortunately, that report recommends a variety of measures that directly contradict state and local 

conservation plans. Eleven states in the West are the habitat for the greater sage-grouse.8 The issues associated with the 

species’ conservation are complex in their details and expansive in their impacts. Western states, and stakeholders in those 

states, have spent many years working to develop and implement workable conservation solutions that can preclude a formal 

listing of the greater sage-grouse under ESA.9 Those efforts have resulted in a number of innovative tools, including specific 

Candidate Conservation Agreements or Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances designed to protect the 

species. By way of example, we would point to the efforts by the State of Wyoming, which has done extensive work in 

establishing a model for conservation of the greater sage-grouse. Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 was developed in 

consultation with the BLM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Wyoming Game and Fish, local and state sage-grouse 

working groups, conservation groups, and the public. This EO was reviewed by the FWS, which found it to be a sound 

framework for a policy by which to conserve greater sage-grouse in the state. On November 10, 2010 FWS again confirmed 

that “This long-term, science-based vision for the conservation of greater sage-grouse has set the stage for similar 

conservation efforts across the species range,” and that “the Core Population Area Strategy for the greater sage-grouse 

provides an excellent model for meaningful conservation of sage-grouse if fully supported and implemented.” Such efforts 

are not acknowledged in the IMs, nor are there provisions for assuring that state or site-specific efforts will be utilized. The 

Roundtable believes that, minus clear and demonstrable data to the contrary, conservation plans and tools already vetted 

and underway in the region should be relied upon as the basis for the region’s greater sage-grouse conservation effort. This 

is a prime opportunity for the Administration to make good on the goals set out in the President’s Executive Order 13563 

-- Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review: “Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our 

environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best 

available science. It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and 

reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory 

ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure that regulations are 

accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual 

results of regulatory requirements.” Just this week, the President sent another memorandum to the heads of federal 

agencies reiterating the importance of E.O. 13563 and outlining the details of new guidance on consideration of "cumulative 

impacts" of regulations: "Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies should take 

All Both emc0378GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-148 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

active steps to take account of the cumulative effects of new and existing rules and to identify opportunities to harmonize 

and streamline multiple rules. The goals of this effort should be to simplify requirements on the public and private sectors; 

to ensure against unjustified, redundant, or excessive requirements; and ultimately to increase the net benefits of 

regulations." We strongly urge BLM and USFS to heed the President’s directives. A good deal of conscientious effort has 

gone into the Western region’s plans to conserve the greater sage-grouse. Agencies need to use that effort, and the lessons 

learned on the ground, as the basis for federal actions going forward.

772. As noted in our letter requesting an extension of the comment period, the Roundtable is concerned that the BLM and USFS 

are moving forward before a proper vetting of greater sage-grouse habitat maps has been completed. While we appreciate 

the short extension of time granted by the agencies, we believe the comment period needs to be extended further. We hope 

the agencies will provide sufficient time to make sure that hard-won knowledge and progress on the ground can be 

integrated into the EIS and SEIS processes. Critical to that effort is good information flow. Unfortunately, a good deal of 

important data has been released by BLM well after the comment clock started. An example to illustrate our concern: IM 

2012-043 outlines that Preliminary Priority Habitat Areas have been identified by BLM and state wildlife agencies. Those 

areas are described as having the highest conservation value for the species. However, accurate and comprehensive maps of 

these delineations have yet to be made available for public review. The January 10, 2012 Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies’ habitat map, delineating these designated habitat areas, was used during the IM roll-out meetings at BLM 

offices. However, subsequent discussions with BLM state and field office staff have determined that those delineations are 

already being significantly modified by state wildlife agencies. We are fully aware that time constraints exist and that BLM and 

USFS must move quickly if conservation plans are to impact the FWS’ listing decision, which is due in 2015. That is all the 

more reason to spend the time available to make sure that the latest data is gathered and utilized at the front end of the 

process. BLM and USFS need to: 1) finish discussions with state wildlife agencies to assure that delineations of priority habitat 

areas based on the latest data; 2) vet the data to assure that the areas and boundaries are based on solid biological criteria 

which has been subject to site-specific field verification; 3) put the final proposed maps, along with definitive scientific data 

that demonstrates the need for protections, out for public review.

All Both emc0378GB

773. The Roundtable has long supported federal, state and local initiatives that provide incentives for wildlife and habitat 

conservation. Most landowners, Roundtable members included, are inherently stewards of their land and the resources on 

it. Voluntary federal and state programs that help make conservation economically feasible are generally embraced by 

landowners and are, thus, most successful. We encourage the Administration to focus on tools that can encourage 

conservation through voluntary programs and incentives, such as Candidate Conservation Agreements or Candidate 

Conservation Agreements with Assurances.

All Both emc0378GB

774. IM 2012-044 directs BLM staff to strongly consider the conservation measures and recommendations described in the NTT 

Report. One of those recommendations is to manage Priority Habitat Areas to limit anthropogenic disturbance to less than 

three percent of total sage-grouse habitat, regardless of ownership. Associated with that recommendation is the directive 

that, if the threshold limit is exceeded, no further anthropogenic disturbance should be permitted in Priority Habitat Areas.

BLM’s policies are contradictory. On one hand, the BLM IM creates an exemption from its conservation policies for states, 

like Wyoming, that have developed a local regulatory mechanism for sage grouse conservation approved by FWS. On the 

All Both emc0378GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-149

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

other hand, BLM seeks to force compliance with standards much more stringent than Wyoming’s. Neither the BLM IM nor 

the NTT Report provides a scientific basis for the lower threshold. In the absence of verified, site-specific data to the 

contrary, the agencies should not force requirements more stringent than Wyoming’s.

775. We believe that a key role BLM and USFS could play is in establishing a common database for information on the greater 

sage-grouse gathered region-wide. There is no need for duplicative databases across multiple agencies. A common database 

will improve regulatory efficiency and ensure that the most up-to-date and accurate data is being used to inform regulatory 

and voluntary conservation actions. As part of this effort, BLM and other agencies should agree on protocols to ensure 

uniformity in data gathering/reporting across multiple planning units.

All Both emc0378GB

776. At this point, it is very difficult to determine BLM’s precise intent with this conservation effort because there are so many

different terms used in different documents. We encourage the BLM and other conservation agencies to adopt common 

terminology. Ongoing conservation models, such as the Wyoming EO, have already been vetted and stakeholders have been 

working under them. It makes sense for BLM/USFS to adopt the terminology used there. Doing so will improve efficiency 

and assure that time is not lost due to confusion and disagreements over definitional issues.

All Both emc0378GB

777. The issued IMs give BLM and USFS field offices the discretion to reject, deny or defer approvals for proposed activities, such 

as mineral leasing or rights-of-ways (ROWs), in preliminary priority habitat areas. The Roundtable believes it is 

fundamentally unfair to delay projects for two years while RMPs are revised to reflect new conservation measures for 

greater sage-grouse. Interim sage-grouse conservation can be achieved through the NEPA process for proposed projects, 

and conservation measures can be incorporated into issued permits.

All Both emc037GB

778. The ESA2 establishes that the purpose of the Act is to “provide a means whereby ecosystems upon which endangered 

species and threatened species depend may be conserved....” (see Purposes, underlined emphasis added)2. As emphasized 

in the quotation above the purpose applies only to ecosystems “upon which endangered species and threatened species 

depend” and is not applicable to the habitat of a species until said species has been listed under the Act. Thus, if GSG are not 

legally qualified to be listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, conservation measures to maintain or enhance GSG 

populations or habitat cannot be invoked under the auspices of the Act.

All Both emc0395GB

779. The December 27, 2011 BLM IMs7 instruct all BLM Field Officials in all program areas to consider and implement specific 

GSG conservation measures contained in the associated December 21, 2001 BLM Report8 when conducting projects within

“Preliminary Priority Habitat.” “Preliminary Priority Habitat” currently encompasses essentially all of the highest quality

breeding habitat that supports 75% of the known current breeding population, which includes approximately 27% of the 

occupied range of the GSG (see Doherty,6 pg. 2). These BLM IMs pre-decide the outcome of the proposed project to 

prepare EISs to incorporate GSG conservation measures into land use plans. The BLM IMs assume that conservation of 

“Preliminary Priority Habitat” is necessary to prevent the species from being listed under the ESA, and assume that the 

conservation measures identified in the associated BLM Report will ultimately be imposed as regulatory mechanisms to 

protect GSG. However, public input through this scoping process and subsequent review steps required before finalizing the 

proposed project may result in a completely different final decision regarding what actions, if any, need to be taken to avoid 

the presumed need to list the GSG under the ESA. In fact, as discussed herein, there is ample evidence that the GSG does 

not legally qualify for listing under the ESA, and the proposed planning process could well result in documentation of such 

All BLM emc0395GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-150 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

evidence so that no further action is needed to prevent the GSG from being listed when the FWS makes its final listing 

determination by the year 2015. The decision and action to assume otherwise and immediately implement draconian

sage-grouse conservation measures through the BLM IMs within “Preliminary Priority Habitat” based upon guidelines in the 

BLM Report makes a mockery of the current planning process and its alleged public scoping and comment opportunities. If 

decisions regarding GSG conservation measures and the landscapes to which they will apply have already been made, why 

pretend to seek public input regarding the issues and alternatives to consider regarding sage-grouse conservation? On the 

other hand, if the decisions have not yet been made, why impose preliminary actions upon a vast area of land when those 

actions may ultimately be found to be altogether unwarranted, counterproductive, or only necessary on a much smaller 

scale? On their face, the BLM IMs both indicate that the instructions promote “sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations” (IM 2012-043 at pgs. 1 and 2, and IM 2012-044 at pg. 2)7. Such an objective is consistent with a goal to maintain 

the minimum effective population needed to safeguard the species from extinction, and thus avoid the purported need for 

the species to be listed under the ESA. In other words, the minimum sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse population is 

equivalent to the minimum effective population (as high as 5,000 breeding adults) needed to provide sufficient genetic

material to protect the species from the long-term risk of extinction. As discussed above, a minimum effective population as 

high as 5,000 birds comprises less than 1% of the current GSG breeding population, and requires less than 0.15% of the total

acreage in the occupied range for support. While the IMs imply that the goal of BLM GSG conservation is to promote 

sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations, they then irrationally provide instructions to provide conservation 

protections to 75% of the current GSG breeding population (75 times as many birds) across a landscape that is more than 

180 times larger than the area needed by the minimum effective population (27% of the occupied GSG range rather than 

0.15%). Such massive expansion of the conservation goal (from one intended to promote a sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse 

population of 5,000 birds to one that directs the promotion of 75 times as many birds on more than 180 times as much land 

as is needed) mushroomed from a subtle change in wording contained in the goal statement of the BLM Report. Page 6 of the 

BLM Report8 states that the BLM “endorsed the goal” of the Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy 

(Stiver et. al., 2006) “to maintain and enhance populations and distribution of sage‐grouse by protecting and improving 

sagebrush habitats and ecosystems that sustain these populations” (underlined emphasis added). Note that the goal 

endorsed by the BLM Report to “sustain these populations” changes the ESA compliant goal of maintaining a sustainable 

population (minimum effective population of as many as 5,000 birds) to safeguard the GSG from extinction to an expanded 

goal to maintain or enhance these (current) populations. Since current GSG populations are so much larger than the 

minimum effective population, the expanded goal to sustain current populations requires conservation of many more birds 

over a much larger landscape than would be required by the ESA to merely protect the species from the risk of long-term 

extinction. Thus, while the Notice of Intent states that the purpose of the EIS process is to “avoid a potential listing” of the 

GSG under the ESA, the conservation measures identified for analysis under the EIS process, and already implemented by the 

BLM IMs, actually provide ESA styled protections to far more GSG over a much larger landscape than would be the case if 

the populations were to actually shrink to the point that the species met the criteria for listing under the ESA.

780. As discussed above, the current GSG population exceeds the minimum effective population by 107 times. Current GSG 

populations and habitats located within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and National 

All Both emc0395GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-151

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Conservation Areas likely far exceed the minimums needed to safeguard the species against extinction. These nationally 

designated areas already impose regulatory mechanisms that mirror those that are thought to provide protections for GSG. 

Thus, it is likely that a well reasoned, detailed analysis of the current situation will demonstrate that no additional action is 

necessary because GSG do not legally qualify for listing under the ESA based upon their current population size and slow 

rates of change in recent times. Further, their numbers and trend in existing nationally designated areas alone likely prevents 

the GSG from meeting the legal qualifications for listing under the ESA.

781. Even if analysis demonstrates that current GSG numbers and population trends disqualify the species from listing as either 

“endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA as argued herein, it may be reasonable to consider an alternative to maintain 

or enhance existing GSG populations. The FWS Findings express concerns regarding rapidly declining GSG populations 

between the late 1960s and late 1980s, and continued downward population trends (although at a slower rate) from the late 

1980s to the present. Such concerns make it reasonable to consider an alternative that would maintain or enhance current 

GSG populations, so long as that alternative does not negatively impacting existing socioeconomic uses occurring on BLM 

and FS administered lands. An analysis of the past management history within the Great Basin indicates that GSG flourished 

when livestock grazing levels were significantly higher than they are now. During this same period, large wildfires in the 

region were very infrequent (likely due to lower wildfire fuel levels as a result of close grazing), and concerted predator 

control measures were practiced. These management actions could be put into practice again to benefit GSG without 

harming the existing socioeconomic climate, but rather enhancing it. In fact, it is reasonable to argue that the FWS Findings 

get it wrong when they conclude that there is a lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the GSG. Instead, many of 

the regulatory mechanisms currently in place are harming the species. For example, regulations restricting livestock numbers 

and use levels increase fire fuels across the Great Basin, and these regulations have resulted in a dramatic increase in large 

wildfires in the region in recent decades, which has destroyed GSG habitat to the detriment of the species. Repeated fire has 

led many sagebrush communities to convert to cheatgrass dominance, which assures that the habitat will remain unfit for

GSG into the foreseeable future. Rules restricting predator control, regulating the use of poisons and baits, and protecting 

ravens have resulted in excessive GSG loses due to predation. Whenever a species like the GSG with a relatively low 

reproduction rate (FWS Findings,4 pg. 13916) loses the vast majority of its eggs to predation, and can trace more than 80% 

of the mortality of those individuals that manage to hatch to predation (FWS Findings,4 pgs. 13930, 13971, and 13972), its 

populations can be expected to decline. Again, it appears that existing rules are harming GSG populations, not a lack of 

adequate rules. It is reasonable to analyze an alternative to eliminate existing regulatory/policy mechanisms that are harming 

GSG, or replace them with rules that again implement management practices that allowed the species to rapidly increase in 

the past, at least within the Great Basin. Because current GSG populations greatly exceed the minimum effective population, 

any management alternative that would stabilize or increase the current population level would eliminate any perceived 

justification to list the species under the ESA. However, given the multiple-use mandates applicable to BLM and FS

administered lands, consideration and analysis of such an alternative to help GSG populations is only reasonable if it does not 

negatively impact other valid existing uses. An alternative to increase livestock grazing to reduce fuel loads and minimize 

wildfire impacts, and to return to concerted predator control practices is reasonable because it would benefit GSG without 

harming the existing socioeconomic climate, but rather enhancing it.

All Both emc0395GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-152 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

782. The BLM proposed alternative to impose GSG conservation measures to maintain or enhance current populations across a 

75% Breeding Density Area is a vast overreach of what is reasonable to achieve the stated purpose of the Notice of Intent 

and avoid the presumed need to list the species under the ESA. If analysis of the current situation determines that no existing 

habitat area(s) provide large enough interconnected habitat with sufficient management protections to support a minimum 

effective population as high as 5,000 interbreeding adults into the foreseeable future, the EIS process must consider 

reasonable alternatives to establish such adequate habitat areas. Such alternatives should identify and designate GSG 

habitat(s) sufficient to support enough GSG to maintain a sustainable population that achieves or exceeds the minimum 

effective population, including, but not necessarily limited to, alternatives to provide such habitat: 1) as a single contiguous 

block; 2) as a proximate habitat network that would allow the free flow of genetic information among the minimum effective

population; 3) within both of the GSG stronghold areas identified in the FWS Findings (the southwest Wyoming Basin and 

the Great Basin area straddling Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho, pages 13958, 13962, 13986, 13988, 14008, and 14009) 3; and, 4) 

within the minimum Breeding Density Area necessary to maintain the minimum effective population (for example, a 3% 

Breeding Density Area would sustain more than 15,000 GSG in Management Zones I – V alone, which is more than 3 times 

the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds).

All Both emc0395GB

783. I. FOREST SERVICE ACTION IS NEEDED TO CONSERVE GREATER SAGE GROUSE. Clearly, the greater sage grouse 

(hereafter "GSG") is a species whose populations have greatly declined in the last 50 years or so.1 GSG was recently found 

by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be warranted but precluded from listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

See 75 Fed Reg 13910, March 23, 2010. In order to avoid ESA listing, strong measures will have to be implemented to 

maintain existing populations and allow recovery of GSG to full, viable, and demonstrably secure populations range-wide. In 

general, the recommendations of the National Technical Team (NTT, 2011), should be adopted. See further discussion in 

section IV below.

All USFS emc0175RM

784. According to the warranted but precluded determination, the Forest Service has management authority for eight percent of 

GSG habitat in the seven management zones for the species. Fed Reg, id., at 13979.2 Though the BLM manages the majority 

of GSG habitat (id. at 13920), the Forest Service must do its part to ensure conservation of this species. This will be 

necessary to ensure that there are adequate regulatory mechanisms for protecting the species, the inadequacy of which 

currently warrants GSG listing under ESA. 75 Fed Reg 13982. GSG is a sensitive species in Forest Service Region 2. Under 

Forest Service policy, sensitive species must receive special attention: 2672 - PLANNING FOR MANAGEMENT AND 

RECOVERY. 2672.1 - Sensitive Species Management. Sensitive species of native plant and animal species must receive special 

management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need 

for Federal listing. FSM 2672. Further direction on sensitive species is as follows: 1. Develop and implement management 

practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. 2. Maintain 

viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their 

geographic range on National Forest System lands. 3. Develop and implement management objectives for populations and/or 

habitat of sensitive species. FSM 2670.22.

All USFS emc0175RM

785. I am concerned that due to the magnitude and importance of this effort, leaving any major items to be done between the 

DEIS and FEIS can be detrimental to the outcome and subsequent challenges. My comments have this in mind.

All Both emc0149GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-153

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

786. Having similar restrictions and consequences for similar activities will ensure fair and equitable treatment to everyone in the 

planning area. For example to keep it simple, you need similar mechanisms for permit and non-permit holders. Let's say a 

university is doing a research project and never acquired authorization, where everyone has similar restrictions (i.e ., 6 p.m. 

to 9 a.m. time of day restriction). As a power company employee you hold the company liable and the penalties go against 

the company. The penalties here need to go against the university and not the researcher, like you would a company and 

ultimately impact there ability in the future to do work on public lands. There has to be consequences, no matter how good 

someone or an organization thinks their actions or intentions are. If a person is out there under the blanket they are 

monitoring agency activities for some reason, the organization needs an authorization first and the organization needs to be 

liable for their member's activities. Everyone needs to take responsibility and have similar responsibilities and consequences. 

The brunt of the restrictions cannot go completely or almost completely on a few permit holders in such a large issue as this. 

I think it would be a sweeter pill to swallow if everyone gets the same pill.

All Both emc0149GB

787. Having similar consequences will also make implementation easier and cheaper for the agencies. You can't effectively 

implement fifteen rules for fifteen groups, for similar impacts or actions. That being said, you shouldn't have some groups 

without any rules or restrictions that may have impacts to sage grouse or their habitat.

All Both emc0149GB

788. Therefore, if you have one size fits all for most restrictions you can implement it, enforce it and everyone is on a level playing 

field. Also, if you require much more from the few permit holders than others than you are saying their particular use is more 

impacting than another group at the same time and place. You need to address that in your analysis.

All Both emc0149GB

789. As an example, if you break migratory bird hunting rules, the USFWS has many mechanisms to punish you in the short and 

long-term. This issue is too big to all of us across the West to not have consequences, even serious ones to our individual 

actions. We are in this together. If one group says they should be exempt from any regulatory restrictions because of who 

they are and what they are doing for the greater good of sage grouse, then they are more worried about themselves then the 

health of the sage grouse or the public land habitats.

All Both emc0149GB

790. I think it is an admirable task to accomplish in the proposed timeframe and then for the USFWS to utilize it in their listing 

decision. Your 45 day extension is going to make it even harder for you. If this process gets challenged as being inadequate 

in one way or another, I hope you will have a mechanism in place for the USFWS to be able to use the final document or 

significant portions of it in their efforts on the listing decision. If it doesn't, it will not meet the greater needs of the general 

public in this very important effort.

All Both emc0149GB

791. I am concerned about what you will use in the cumulative impact section and does the public really understand what to 

comment on when the DEIS comes out. An example would be Idaho Power Company's Electrical Plans with similar life spans 

as these amendments. For example, for local citizens and local leaders to know the true potential impacts to upgrading or 

adding new lines to their homes and communities needs to be truly spelled out in the DEIS so they can respond and not wait 

until the FEIS comes out. If you do, it is too late to be truly addressed and discussed openly. The impacts will be physical,

social and economical in terms of existing needs and future growth potentials

All Both emc0149GB

792. I had requested the sage grouse lek data from IDFG, but was not able to open the various files due to my computer 

capabilities. I think you need to address historical and active lek information and show it to the public in a format we can 

easily access. That is where they are and how the data will be or will not be used. For example, this will be important not only 

All Both emc0149GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-154 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

under power lines, but also near private property. At this point I do not understand the breeding density map well enough 

to comment and how they relate to historic and active leks. According to a simple evaluation, it appears the circles on the 

map are 10 miles across or have a 5 mile radius. If the impact zones are 5 miles from an active lek this will definitely impact 

various unpermitted and permitted activities; and potentially private property rights if use can be curtailed later after 

completion of this EIS.

793. In regards to lek locations, you need to inform the readers in the DEIS how private or nonfederal ownership property will 

or maybe impacted by nearby active or historic leks from the USFWS or other agencies in subsequent years, once the data 

is made available and regulatory mechanisms are in place.

All Both emc0149GB

794. Do you foresee a County Planning and Zoning Committee being required to use this data in their permitting activities in the 

future? Please address this issue.

All Both emc0149GB

795. Science alone will not save sage grouse. What science you use needs to be peered reviewed. The agencies know what has 

worked and hasn't in the past and today. You have over three decades of experience in vegetation management. You have 

made constant improvements and changes in practices so incorporate them here in this document. Take and get credit for 

them. Research your files, find these practices and get credit for your knowledge, skills and abilities in this effort.

All Both emc0149GB

796. I admire your efforts to include Adaptive Management. However, everyone needs to buy into it to make it work. Some 

federal and state agencies seem to be very reluctant to try new ideas, like forage kochia for fire breaks. However, if you keep 

doing the same thing and expect a new and better result you are wasting valuable time on sage grouse and their habitats, 

other important resources and public funds. So until all the federal and state agencies agree to fully try new ideas, adaptive 

management will fail. Please be very open to new ideas in this process. If an attempt or trial objectives are not achieved, your 

adaptive management needs to have a plan to address those impacts, but if you do not have avenues to try, you will fail in the 

end. Some groups may not want you to have adaptive management available as a tool. They want you to be tied to a finite 

process which is not practicable or realistic yesterday, today or into the future. Especially over such a large planning area. 

You need to incorporate adaptive management strategies; processes to monitor it within realistic budgets and workloads; 

processes to respond to issues that don't work out and processes to quickly pass along the information of those that do 

work. You need to build processes in this EIS to quickly move forward on trials that do work. Any pre-work that can be done 

in this process that can be tiered to later is needed. Don't be afraid and don't paint yourselves in a corner before you start 

by fear of the unknown. Remember, science is only as good as the questions that have been asked and then answered. As 

information comes to light in this process, include a plan to ask academia more questions for them to answer to build on 

your science.

All Both emc0149GB

797. Adaptive management needs to address everyone. I am sure you will have great regulatory mechanisms to address permit 

holders, be it a power company or a rancher to meet your resource objectives. However, we all know by the end of each 

year there is more potential impacts from the ever growing dispersed recreation community than the few vehicles and 

activities of permit holders addressing existing permits. You need to have the same or very similar restrictions to implement 

and manage. As used before, if you are going to restrict all permit holders from disturbing sage grouse leks from 6 p.m. to 9

a.m., then everyone needs to follow that same restriction. That includes permit holders, motorized recreation, general 

recreationists, researchers, groups saying they are monitoring your activities, etc.

All Both emc0149GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-155

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

798. I think casual use, as BLM has treated it in the past and considers it today; will become a weak link in the sage grouse issue, 

this EIS effort and future management. Casual use, which is non-impacting use, is a historical perspective before uses of public 

lands has increased in many places to today's levels. You need to address it in a proactive versus reactive basis in this EIS. 

Adaptive management would work here if you have a series of actions that will put in place if certain impacts happen and 

everyone is aware of the consequences of their actions up front and are treated fairly and similarly.

All Both emc0149GB

799. For about 5 million acres of this planning area, 12 existing land use plan amendments were completed in 2008, through the 

Fire, Fuels and Related Vegetation Management Direction Plan Amendment EIS (FMDA). I believe that EIS covered much of 

what you will be addressing now; knowing fire is still the major threat. The Pocatello and Crater's RMP/EISs followed much 

of the philosophies in those two efforts so you can add those acres on top of that effort. The plan was aggressive, included 

much of the concerns for sage grouse and took many years to complete (more than you have). It also acknowledged that fire 

numbers were not going to be reduced over the life of that plan, but due to the efforts of BLM the intensity and size should.

With that in mind, you need to be realistic on what are you really going to accomplish over the life of this new planning effort. 

In other words, don't plan to spend 10-20 times the funds in this effort then what you may actually get. That sets unrealistic 

and un-fulfilled expectations.

All Both emc0149GB

800. I believe over the life of these amendments, the same will happen as the FMDA. The number of fires will not be measurably 

reduced, but the size and intensity should, if you have the ability to implement it. You need to be realistic here to keep 

achievable expectations and thus reasonable regulatory mechanisms.

All Both emc0149GB

801. I am concerned the agencies are doing more than you are getting credit for already. You are doing these amendments to 

partially have a regulatory mechanism to get this credit. You must bring forward all activities, no matter how small or 

seemingly insignificant in one office or staff of one office and allow the USFWS determine if it is actually good existing 

practice. Please canvas your existing staffs. Even minor tweaks to an existing process to become acceptable and regulatory 

are better than starting new after this effort. Not asking these questions and getting a complete list can lead to an incomplete 

analysis of what is currently occurring and eventually getting credit for it.

All Both emc0149GB

802. The wisdom to protect sage grouse will come when we all work together for the common good and not individually for or 

against any particular issue or use. Such as, what I do is OK and what you do is not. Just like what made the Owyhee Initiative 

a success, everyone must participate and be willing to give. Please keep that in mind as you proceed.

All Both emc0149GB

803. While I appreciate the Bureau's cooperation with interested parties to identify alternatives to including the Sage Grouse 

under the full protection of the Endangered Species Act, I am concerned that the proposed plan deviates greatly from the 

spirit of this effort. Rather than ensuring the continued multi-purpose use of the vast federal lands under Bureau 

management, this plan appears to be unnecessarily restrictive to traditional activities and, in some cases, seems destructive

of the fundamental property rights recognized by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

All Both emc0347GB

804. As a result of this clear contradiction between the proposed plan and basic Constitutional principles, I request that in the 

preparation of the final plan, the Bureau make appropriate changes necessary to ensure that private property rights are not

trampled upon in the pursuit of your objectives.

All BLM emc0347GB

805. The EISs/SEISs should allow BLM officials, FS officials, and grazing permittees the opportunity to work cooperatively and 

provide flexibility in making case-by-case decisions in the best interests of affected natural resources and area citizens. 

All Both rmc0010RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-156 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Planning criteria needs to include an objective ensuring management decisions are complimentary to other planning 

jurisdictions and adjoining properties. These planning jurisdictions and adjoining properties include deeded lands, and 

decisions reflected in the EISs/SEISs will critically impact landowners operations and planned livestock grazing management 

on these lands. For this reason, BLM and FS officials need to make every effort to ensure their decisions are complimentary 

to adjoining properties. Decisions affecting livestock grazing and other resource uses in the planning area will have significant 

direct impacts on grazing permittees.

806. Livestock grazing is an important tool used to enhance and sustain rangeland health. In Chapter Two of the EISs/SEISs, which 

includes goals, objectives, and management actions of the various resource values, it is essential these goals, objectives and 

management actions for livestock grazing management include the promotion of livestock grazing management. This is a 

stark contrast to the belief that livestock grazing management exists only to promote all other resource values. Chapter 

Two should be written with the understanding that livestock grazing is an important resource value in and of itself. Often, the 

effects livestock grazing has upon other uses are focused on and the impacts of those uses upon livestock grazing 

management, forage availability and grazing permittees are overlooked. Planning needs to include the effects greater 

sage-grouse management has upon livestock grazing management.

All Both rmc0010RM

807. Management prescriptions must reflect multiple use resource principles. Congressional mandates, federal statutes, and 

implementing regulations call for multiple uses on BLM-administered lands. WDA particularly believes BLM should 

specifically include the Congressional policy expressed in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 

about livestock grazing in the Amendment. FLPMA Sec. 102{8) states "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the 

United States that ... the public lands be managed in a manner ... that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and 

domestic animals ... " Through experience we have learned many in the public are unaware of this Congressional policy. Yet 

that policy is critical to livestock grazing in planning area. It is critical that FLPMA is expressed in the EISs/SEISs.

All BLM rmc0010RM

808. Active collaboration between local cooperators, state cooperators, and BLM and FS officials is key to successful planning. 

Cooperating agency meetings allow cooperators to discuss and have a shared knowledge of objectives, concerns, existing 

conditions, and desired conditions. They also help build a confidence in and support for proposed actions. We request 

meetings of cooperators to help develop goals, objectives, management actions, alternatives, and Draft and Final documents.

All Both rmc0010RM

809. The EPA has reviewed the BLM's December 9, 2011 Federal Register NOI in accordance with our responsibilities under 

Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. Section 309 

specifically directs the EPA to review and comment in writing on the environmental impacts associated with all major federal 

actions. Our review of the EIS prepared for the proposed action will consider the expected environmental impacts and the 

adequacy of the EIS in meeting procedural and public disclosure requirements of the NEPA. A copy of our rating system is 

enclosed.

All Both rmc0020RM 

RMC0077gb

810. The EPA strongly supports the BLM's and U.S. Forest Service's (FS) efforts to incorporate consistent objectives and 

conservation measures for the protection of greater sage-grouse and its hahitat into relevant Resource Management Plans 

and Land and Resource Management Plans. We are providing comments to inform the BLM and FS of items we believe 

warrant consideration in forthcoming NEPA analyses for the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Our intent is 

to assist BLM in that effort.

All Both rmc0020RM 

rmc0077gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-157

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

811. We recognize that as land use and land management plans are developed, there will likely be challenges to consider when 

developable, resource rich areas are in close proximity to greater sage-grouse conservation areas. Seasonal and location 

restrictions designed to protect the greater sage-grouse could also result in unintended impacts on other environmental 

resources, such as air and water quality and wetlands. For example, if energy or mineral development is concentrated 

temporally or spatially away from greater sage-grouse habitat, cumulative impacts on high value air resources (e.g., Class I 

areas) and water resources may become significant. The EPA recommends that the EISs explain how the ELM plans to make 

project-level decisions when faced with natural resource protection trade-offs. We encourage ELM to consider relative 

resource values and discuss in the EIS whether or not, and under what circumstances, changes that beneficially or adversely 

impact greater sage-grouse would be allowed.

All Both rmc0020RM 

rmc0077gb

812. In light of ELM's role of carrying out the multiple use doctrine, we support processes and tools that involve as many 

stakeholders as possible in a transparent and collaborative process designed to facilitate clear understanding of the scope of 

decisions being made. One component of ensuring that the planning process is well understood by as many stakeholders as 

possible would be to ensure that up-to-date and detailed greater sage-grouse conservation planning strategy maps are 

readily available in the EISs and on ELM's website.

All Both rmc0020RM 

rmc0077gb

813. Priority and General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat The identification of priority and general habitat areas is an important 

aspect of this planning process. It will be important to understand how and why these designations could change, as the 

changes could affect the level of impacts to the environment. We recommend that the EISs describe the process by which 

priority and general habitat land designations could change over time and the criteria or circumstances that would be part of

that process.

All Both rmc0020RM 

rmc0077gb

814. Adaptive Management. Mitigation and Monitoring We understand from the NOI that ELM is committing to base the RMP and 

LMP amendments on the principles of adaptive management. We strongly support this approach and recommend that 

adaptive management plans include: • A timeline for periodic reviews and adjustments, as well as a mechanism to consider 

and implement additional mitigation measures, as necessary. • Specific thresholds that would trigger changes in management 

actions, monitoring or mitigation. • Criteria for determining whether additional mitigation measures are needed. • A 

commitment to implementation of the proposed monitoring plan. We agree with the Sage-Grouse National Technical 

Team's conclusion that the standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible monitoring approach 

is vital if BLM and other conservation partners are to use the resulting information to guide implementation of conservation 

acllviiles.

All Both rmc0020RM 

rmc0077gb

815. The EPA especially supports recommendations for mitigation and monitoring from the following resources: • CEQ's January 

14,2011 guidance on "Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings 

of No Significant Impact."2 • Chapter 4 of the 2003 report to CEQ, "Modernizing NEPA Implementation" for information on

factors, approaches and considerations relating to adaptive management and monitoring.'

All Both rmc0020RM 

rmc0077gb

816. The Greater Sage-Grouse core area protection strategy, set forth in Executive Order 2011 -5, is Wyoming's long-term 

strategy for the conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The BLM and USFS have served as members of the 

Sage-Grouse Implementation Team with equal opportunity for input in the development of that strategy. We should keep to 

this good plan, not deviate from it. I request that the BLM and USFS analyze the management strategy outlined in Executive 

All Both rmc0032RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-158 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Order 2011 -5 and adopt its conservation measures in all land use plans in Wyoming.

817. As we move forward with a rangewide conservation strategy, it is important that we develop a process to conserve and 

restore habitats for Greater Sage-Grouse on a landscape scale. With that in mind, I request that future land use plans 

recognize the potential for off-site compensatory mitigation regardless of ownership, including federal lands, within and 

outside current core areas, as an effective conservation measure.

All Both rmc0032RM

818. Land use plans should include permit incentives that accelerate restoration of degraded habitats on all lands that support 

sage-grouse. This should include adequate consideration of the use of non-native vegetation to prevent loss of habitat from 

wildfire, restoration of habitats associated with previous disturbances, and aggressive reclamation of activities permitted 

under current plans. At the same time, land use plans should address development practices in Greater SageGrouse core 

areas for the least possible disturbance required for those activities. Specifically, right-of-way development, well locations, 

and other surface disturbances should be designed to meet the overall objective of minimal surface disturbance in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, rather thanjust standard engineering and siting protocols.

All Both rmc0032RM

819. Our comments include an alternative for agency planners to analyze and consider in the planning process. As noted in BLM 

Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, the BLM must consider a reasonable range of alternatives in the sage-grouse planning 

process in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq). The Council on

Environmental Quality has also promulgated regulations stating that alternatives are the “heart” of NEPA planning and that 

federal agencies must “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” (40 CFR § 1502.14). The 

Forest Service Handbook states that the purpose and intent of alternatives are to “ensure that the range of alternatives does 

not foreclose prematurely any option that might protect, restore and enhance the environment” (FSH ch. 20 § 23.2). Even 

an alternative that prescribes measures that are outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in an 

EIS if it is reasonable (46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18027). Our alternative, the “Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative” (recovery 

alternative), is reasonable and scientifically sound. It seeks to maintain and increase current sage-grouse abundance and

distribution by conserving, enhancing and restoring sagebrush steppe. It is an evidence-based alternative that takes a 

precautionary approach to resource management. It will likely differ from other alternatives developed in the planning 

process in at least two key ways: 1. The Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative prescribes additional, and more restrictive,

conservation measures than the Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures. The BLM convened a 

Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) in 2011 to review information on sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe and 

produce “A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures” (SGNTT 2011). The BLM will primarily 

consider management recommendations in that report in the planning process (BLM Memo 2012-044). However, the NTT’s 

assessment and recommendations for some planning issues, such as livestock grazing and associated infrastructure, 

vegetation management, invasive plants, fire management, and wind energy development, are insufficient to robustly 

conserve sage-grouse across its range. The Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative incorporates information from other agency 

and peer-reviewed references to make additional and stronger management prescriptions for these land uses and related

effects. 2. The Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative recommends that the BLM designate a system of Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) to conserve sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. The planning notices 

invite the public to propose ACECs in scoping comments (76 Fed. Reg. 77011). The Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-159

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

recommends criteria for identifying a system of ACECs (BLM) and Sagebrush Conservation Areas (USFS) rangewide to serve 

as refugia for sage-grouse and other species. These differences are significant and warrant separate and complete analysis and 

consideration in the planning process. As the Sage-grouse Recovery Alternative will be different from other alternatives and 

presents a reasonable program for conserving sage-grouse and their habitat, we intend for it to be published and analyzed as 

a stand-alone alternative in planning documents.

820. The planning notices identify 68 BLM planning areas and 20 USFS land management plans that may be affected by the 

announced planning process (76 Fed. Reg. 77009-77010; 77 Fed. Reg. 7178) (the BLM National Greater Sage-grouse Planning 

Strategy states that the planning effort will affect 73 BLM planning units (BLM 2011b: 1); we generated Table 1 from multiple 

BLM sources, listing 80 BLM planning units that may be affected by the planning process). As conservation organizations have 

previously advised, all federal departments and agencies that manage sage-grouse habitat should be involved in the planning

process, including the BLM, USFS (National Forest System, see below), FWS (National Wildlife Refuge System), National 

Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Departments of Energy and Defense. All federal lands with Greater 

Sage-grouse habitat should be included in the planning process—currently millions of acres of federally managed

Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative Ï Page 5 of 121 habitat would not be covered in the process (see Appendix 1). Failure to 

conserve sagegrouse on these lands could require listing the species under the Endangered Species Act.

All Both emc0391GB

821. The planning process should also include all federal agencies that fund, permit, or monitor activities or resources on public 

or private land that affect sage-grouse, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Services Agency, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S.

Geological Survey possesses much important information and expertise on sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe and should 

also be involved

All Both emc0391GB

822. No current BLM plans have considered or incorporated the NTT report recommendations (or the recovery alternative), 

and so every BLM planning unit with sage-grouse habitat must be amended by the planning process, regardless of whether 

they are currently under revision or the status of their revision. Table 1 lists BLM planning units that may be affected by the

planning process.

All Both emc0391GB

823. The announced planning process would affect 20 USFS land use plans (76 Fed. Reg. 77010; 77 Fed. Reg. 7178).2 The planning 

process should include all USFS units that contain sagegrouse habitat (see Appendix 3). Failure to include all affected USFS 

units in the planning process and to amend those land use plans with sage-grouse conservation measures could hinder 

conservation and recovery of the species, particularly at the periphery of its range.

All USFS emc0391GB

824. The BLM and USFS specifically identified a reference to inform the planning process (in addition to the NTT report): the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and 

Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004) (76 Fed. Reg. 77010). Planners should also consult Greater Sagegrouse: Ecology 

and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitat (Knick and Connelly 2011),4 a seminal reference that updates and 

expands on the WAFWA publication, as well as other peer-reviewed scientific information (e.g., references cited in 75 Fed. 

Reg. 13910).

All Both emc0391GB

825. While the BLM planning directive requires planners to analyze and consider the same conservation measures in EISs (i.e., the 

measures in the NTT report), it “expects” that measures may be variously and varyingly applied at regional and sub-regional 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-160 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

levels (BLM Memo 2012-044). While some variation is reasonable to address local ecological conditions, federal agencies 

must avoid developing and applying significantly different management prescriptions across sage-grouse range. A series of 

local plans that, for example, deviate from rangewide prescriptions to accommodate local economic interests and land uses 

could result in the same deficient, patchwork management that FWS previously determined to be inadequate to conserve 

sage-grouse in its “warranted, but precluded” listing determination (75 Fed. Reg. 13910).

826. In addition to prescribing the same or very similar conservation measures for sage-grouse rangewide, the multiple EISs must 

require that each covered RMP and LMRP adopt those measures. Conservation measures cannot be optional or left to 

interpretation, or some BLM field offices and national forests and grasslands may choose not to implement them, or

implement them differently than planners intended, resulting once again in varying and patchwork management schemes for 

sage-grouse.

All Both emc0391GB

827. The BLM and USFS must not delay implementing improved conservation measures for Greater Sage-grouse. Unfortunately, 

BLM interim planning guidance prescribes less restrictive conservation measures than are even included in the NTT report 

(BLM Memo 2012-043). The BLM and USFS should issue new interim guidance based on conservation measures in the NTT 

report

All Both emc0391GB

828. BLM planning guidance requires that the agency address planning issues and follow planning criteria when developing and 

revising land use plans (BLM Handbook 1610-1). Planning criteria guide the development of a plan by defining the planning 

space involved. The planning space is bounded by legal obligations and by existing policies and decisions relevant to the issues 

being Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative Ï Page 9 of 121 addressed. The criteria are then used to select the preferred 

alternative. Described another way, the preferred alternative must meet the planning criteria. The planning criteria and 

issues associated with the recovery alternative draw on objectives and guidelines for sage-grouse conservation in the NTT 

report and other sources: • Designate priority sage‐grouse habitat in each WAFWA management zone (Stiver et al. 2006) 

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

enhance populations over the long-term. • Maintain or increase current sage-grouse populations, and manage or restore 

priority habitat so that at least 70 percent of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage‐grouse needs.

• Protect priority habitat from large-scale anthropogenic disturbances that will adversely affect sage-grouse distribution and 

abundance at any level. Disturbances include but are not limited to highways, roads, transmission lines, substations, wind 

turbines, oil and gas wells, heavily grazed areas, range developments, severely burned areas, pipelines, landfills, mines, and 

vegetation treatments that reduce sagebrush cover. • If priority habitat cannot be protected from disturbance (e.g., due to 

valid existing rights), minimize impacts by limiting permitted disturbance to one instance per section of sage‐grouse habitat 

regardless of ownership, with no more than three percent surface disturbance (or, where stipulated, implement the 

disturbance cap prescribed in the applicable state conservation plan, whichever is more protective). • Ensure that 

unavoidable small scale disturbances do not cumulatively disturb more than three percent of each priority area. • Increase 

the amount of protected priority habitat by aggressively using available tools to resolve land use conflicts, including fluid 

mineral lease retirement, voluntary grazing permit retirement, mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral 

claim buyout. • Reduce road density in priority habitat, and establish exclusion areas for new right-ofway permits. • Ensure 

that disturbance or land uses permitted outside priority habitat do not negatively impact sage-grouse populations in priority 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-161

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

habitat. • Manage range resources to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives. • Only implement vegetation treatments that are 

demonstrated to benefit sage-grouse and retain sagebrush height and cover consistent with sage-grouse habitat objectives.

• Design and implement fuels treatments to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems and support sage-grouse habitat 

objectives. • Require adequate protections for sage-grouse general habitat to maintain habitat connectivity, and support 

sage-grouse persistence and management goals in priority habitat. • Identify sage-grouse restoration habitat; use primarily 

passive restoration to restore these areas to support sage-grouse objectives. • Designate sagebrush reserves (ACECs, 

SCAs) and develop management stipulations to achieve sage-grouse conservation goals. • Ensure that plan implementation 

includes both agency and independent verification through collaborative monitoring (BLM Handbooks H4180-1, H16109). • 

Evaluate actions using independent peer review standards (OMB 2004). • Provide a linked sequence of measurable objectives 

for goals, needed land use prescriptions, actions taken to resolve identified issues, and verifiable monitoring. • The preferred 

alternative should be achievable under current and foreseeable agency resources.

829. The BLM’s list of issues is incomplete. Connelly et al. (2011: 555-556, Tables 24.1, 24.2) reviewed literature and listed 

additional threats to sage-grouse that likely exist on federal land, including conifer encroachment, West Nile virus, seeded 

grassland, fences, power lines, vegetation treatments, roads, and reservoirs. It is unclear if BLM and USFS will address conifer

encroachment/expansion, West Nile virus, seeded grassland and vegetation treatments as part of “Greater Sage-grouse 

habitat management.” The NTT report also listed a few additional threats that degrade or fragment habitat or affect 

sage-grouse, including geothermal energy development, landfills, and residential development (SGNTT 2011: 8). The 

agencies should address all of these factors in the planning process

All Both emc0391GB

830. Some threats to sage-grouse are more important than others. An expert panel convened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service ranked threats to the species. They are, in order: invasive species, Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative Ï Page 15 of 

121 infrastructure related to energy (natural gas and oil) development and urbanization, wildfire, agriculture, grazing, energy 

development, urbanization, strip/coal mining, weather, and pinyonjuniper encroachment (70 Fed. Reg. 2267). The panel 

noted that energy development (70 Fed. Reg. 2264) and infrastructure related to energy development (70 Fed. Reg. 2258) 

are of greater concern in the eastern part of sage-grouse range, and wildfire (in part fueled by invasive plants) (70 Fed. Reg. 

2265) is more important in the western portion of the range. Disease, predation, hard-rock mining, hunting and 

environmental contaminants were considered to be of lesser importance to sage-grouse (70 Fed. Reg. 2267). The individual 

synergistic and cumulative effects of land uses and related effects continue to fragment, degrade and eliminate sage-grouse 

habitat across its range (Connelly et al. 2011). Federal planners must fully analyze these threats, develop conservation and 

mitigation measures and apply them rangewide to conserve and recover sage-grouse. Some of the most pervasive threats to 

sage-grouse are briefly reviewed below

All Both emc0391GB

831. SAGE-GROUSE RECOVERY ALTERNATIVE The Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative is submitted as a complete alternative 

to be analyzed and considered for the sage-grouse planning process in accordance with NEPA. The recovery alternative 

incorporates the planning criteria and issues described above. The management prescriptions are based on the conservation 

measures in the NTT report (SGNTT 2011: 11-28), although they also differ from the NTT recommendations in key areas. 

The alternative includes some prescriptions additional to those in the NTT report, and rejects some NTT

recommendations. These differences are identified in the recovery alternative in Appendix 7. The recovery alternative is 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-162 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

comprehensive, reasonable and feasible to implement, and we expect it will be published as a stand-alone alternative. We 

encourage the BLM and USFS to consult with us about any elements that may appear unclear or could be more appropriately 

described. We also request planners to communicate with us about any needed modifications in format for ease of 

comparison with other alternatives

832. We also strongly encourage the participating federal land management agencies to use this broad scale planning process to 

achieve landscape-scale, ecosystem-based conservation improvements across the entire sagebrush steppe ecosystem. 

NOTE: Comment emc0339GB includes attachments

All Both emc0339GB

833. In an effort to help frame and appropriately structure this critical conservation planning effort, Defenders would like to touch 

on several key areas that we believe must be effectively addressed in order for this process to be successful. Please note that 

we are also signed onto two group letters, one covering the Rocky Mountain region and one covering the Great Basin 

region, including an endorsement for the proposed "Recovery Alternative" developed by a coalition of conservation groups. 

In particular, we are focused on ensuring that this planning process is efficient, effective, and transparent, and that it includes 

all the necessary components to ensure the conservation and recovery of greater sage-grouse and the sagebrush steppe 

ecosystem over the long term. Please consider the following recommendations.

All Both emc0339GB

834. A scientific panel selected by the BLM outlined conservation measures that are an important starting point for this process, 

in the 2011 ‘Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures’. These conservation measures should be put 

into practice to the fullest extent possible throughout the greater sage-grouse range. The agencies should analyze an 

alternative that fully incorporates the recommended conservation measures across a large proportion of priority habitat.

The subset of priority habitat must be of sufficient size to meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing greater sage-grouse 

populations. Application of these measures in a subset of priority habitat should be combined with the measures 

recommended previously for consideration in all alternatives.

All Both emc0339GB

835. The BLM and FS should also consider an alternative that offers a level of conservation protection (i.e. increases the 

probability of effective conservation and recovery of the species across its range) beyond the NTT Report. Such an 

alternative should include conservation measures recommended by the NTT Report and also incorporate improvements to 

the NTT’s recommendations, such as ensuring that disturbance or uses that are permitted adjacent to priority habitat don’t 

negatively impact sage-grouse populations in priority habitat, and including small or isolated populations (such as those along 

the periphery of the greater sage-grouse’s range) in priority habitat. Defenders endorses the use of the "Recovery 

Alternative" created and submitted by a coalition of conservation organizations.

All Both emc0339GB

836. Given inherent uncertainty surrounding the efficacy of natural resource conservation measures, plus the uncertain 

compounding effects of variable stressors such as climate driven impacts to population viability and recovery, successful 

sage-grouse conservation will require the BLM and FS to establish and sustain (through funding commitments) rigorous 

monitoring and adaptive management strategies. The NOI indicates that adaptive management will be used. We strongly 

encourage the agencies to partner with the scientific community to develop a scientifically legitimate adaptive management 

strategy that commits to reduce uncertainty and improve conservation through the use of ecologically grounded quantitative 

thresholds and analysis rather than simply providing the agencies with inordinate flexibility and discretion to perform risky, 

and potentially counterproductive, "trial and error" management. As we discuss below, the ability of this program to 

All Both emc0339GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-163

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

demonstrate its effectiveness, both as it is developed and "modeled", and over time through implementation, will be vital for 

successful sage-grouse conservation. To benefit BLM and FS in this work, in Appendix 1 we provide additional information 

regarding what is needed for a strong monitoring and adaptive management framework. NOTE: This letter included an 

attachment, Appendix 1

837. The agencies should work with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in a thoroughly transparent manner, throughout this 

process to rigorously evaluate and determine whether protections created by this process are adequate regulatory 

mechanisms under the ESA, a question that FWS will ultimately answer. Methods for assessing the sufficiency of the 

conservation measures must be based on clear, measurable criteria that rigorously evaluate and project the effectiveness of 

the conservation measures including the likelihood that they will be enforced within agency planning and decision-making 

processes. We stress the fact that the effectiveness of conservation measures can only be verified by monitoring and 

legitimately constructed science-based adaptive management strategies that incorporate meaningful, quantifiable, 

conservation management thresholds that indicate when conservation objectives may be at risk of being missed. BLM and FS 

should be transparent throughout their analysis and share with the public their desired conservation outcomes, objectives, 

assumptions, values, and strategies.

All Both emc0339GB

838. There are a number of key requirements for adequate regulatory mechanisms under the ESA, a few significant ones are listed 

here: - The planning process must be complete, and strong on the ground sage-grouse protections must be in place before 

FWS goes through the listing decision process. - The mechanisms created by this process should be comprehensive and 

address all the threats to the greater sage-grouse. - Plan amendments must come in the form of mandatory, measurable (i.e. 

able to be subject to monitoring and adaptive management) standards for sage-grouse conservation, not just voluntary 

unenforceable measures or guidelines that can be deviated from. - Adaptive management strategies must effectively 

incorporate science-based conservation thresholds (i.e. triggers) in combination with mandatory standards (For more 

information, see Appendix 1).

All Both emc0339GB

839. It is also important that BLM and FS not engage in this process under the assumption that as long as "some" regulatory 

mechanisms are put in place, those will be sufficient to avoid listing. Instead, BLM and FS should approach this conservation 

and recovery planning process with the possibility that listing could still occur, and use this process to both try to avoid listing 

and to be better prepared if listing is unavoidable. One example of pre-listing conservation activities leading to better 

outcomes is the listing of the Canada lynx. In that instance, conservation planning efforts done prior to the listing, including 

working with diverse stakeholders, lead to a smoother transition when the species was listed and avoided major conflicts 

over activities within the lynx range. One way to accomplish better outcomes is to develop and implement agreements to 

conserve the sage-grouse before FWS makes a listing decision. In addition to candidate conservation agreements, BLM 

should work with FWS to develop pre-listing mitigation “pilot projects” for the sage-grouse, in which FWS would explicitly 

recognize the benefits of pre-listing conservation actions for the species, and then allow those benefits to offset adverse 

impacts to the species if it is listed. FWS recently issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to request comments on 

this idea. We encourage the BLM to work with FWS to develop pilot projects that implement the following policy 

recommendations: - Provide regulatory certainty to both federal and non-federal project participants. Regulatory certainty 

means that FWS provides participants with a guarantee that if their pre-listing conservation measures achieve specified 

All Both emc0339GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-164 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

biological outcome, FWS will issue credits for those measures and allow the credits to be used to offset certain adverse 

impacts that occur after listing. Regulatory certainty does not mean giving federal agencies "No Surprise" Assurances under 

section 10 of the ESA. FWS can provide regulatory certainty by conducting an ESA section 7(a)(4) conference on its approval 

of a pre-listing mitigation agreement. - Net conservation benefit standard. Consistent with our recommendations in other 

sections of this letter, each pilot project should result in a net conservation benefit for the greater sage-grouse. This means 

that the benefits of the pre-listing mitigation actions must exceed the adverse effects resulting from the post-listing activities 

to be offset. - Mitigation only. Pre-listing mitigation actions should satisfy only post-listing mitigation requirements, not 

avoidance or minimization requirements that might be required if the species is eventually listed under the ESA. - Duration 

of mitigation measures. In certain situations, FWS should give landowners credit for temporary mitigation measures, 

provided that the impacts being offset are also temporary and that the species experiences a net conservation benefit. -

Timing of credit issuance. As a general matter, FWS should not issue credits for pre-listing mitigation measures until FWS 

concludes that those measures have a very high likelihood of achieving their biological goals and resulting in a net benefit for 

the species.

840. Take a multi-species, landscape-level, ecosystem focused approach We encourage the agencies to consider using the 

sage-grouse conservation planning effort as a vehicle to meet their ancillary policy obligations and secure necessary 

conservation gains for other sagebrush ecosystem associated species of conservation concern. In order to achieve these 

conservation efficiencies, the BLM and FS should optimize expenditure of time and resources on sage-grouse conservation 

by: (1) conducting requisite analyses and developing conservation strategies on a landscape basis and (2) also analyzing the 

potential conservation co-benefits that could be conferred on other species such as pygmy rabbit and Brewer’s sparrow by 

considering all species of concern associated with the sagebrush ecosystem as a part of the overall process of developing a 

conservation strategy for the sage-grouse. The associated environmental impact studies and analysis must ensure that 

individual Environmental Impact Statements prepared as a part of this overall strategy permit the public, state and federal 

agencies, and other stakeholders to understand the cumulative effects of management actions undertaken in accordance 

with this conservation strategy across the entire range of the sage-grouse. That is, when completed, these studies must 

provide a complete picture of how the alternative conservation strategies proposed under individual Environmental Impact 

Statements "add up to" a conservation strategy that will achieve the conservation objectives for the sage-grouse that are 

required to conserve the species. In addition, in each Environmental Impact Statement developed in accordance with this 

overall conservation strategy, we urge the BLM and FS to also analyze and consider alternatives that provide conservation 

benefits to other sagebrush steppe species of conservation concern. A targeted multispecies approach is more efficient than 

a narrow single-species approach, it takes advantage of the opportunity at hand, and provides the federal land management 

agencies added ecosystem and species-scale conservation benefits from work already being done.

All Both emc0339GB

841. One multi-species approach would be to use anticipated conservation benefits to other species as a positively weighted 

factor in the development, comparative analysis, and selection of sage-grouse conservation alternatives and development of 

conservation measures and reserve design. For example, alternatives which consider, in addition to targeted sage-grouse 

conservation standards, broad, habitat-based conservation measures that confer conservation benefits to other species 

could be given additional consideration in decision making as providing broad conservation opportunities for the sage brush 

All Both emc0339GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-165

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

ecosystem, not just one species. An example that could inform a multispecies approach is the BLM’s Threatened and 

Endangered Species Fund, which targets "low hanging fruit"projects where relatively cheap intervention can lead to 

downlisting and delisting of species. With only $2 million in its budget last year, the Fund worked toward delisting a dozen 

species. The decision making and targeting process that goes into management of the Fund could be used to determine 

affordable and easy ways to add on benefits that could be incorporated into this planning process moving forward.

842. Plan and manage for recovery, and establish a "net conservation benefit" standard for mitigation Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) special status species policy provides clear direction to put in place necessary protections to avoid ESA 

listing, requiring the agency to not only minimize threats to sensitive species, but also "improve the condition of the species 

habitat" and "initiate proactive conservation measures" to minimize the likelihood of ESA listing. Forest Service (FS) 

regulation and policy gives similar direction to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and to, among other 

things, develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered 

because of Forest Service actions and maintain viable populations of all native wildlife. These regulations and policies provide 

a framework for this planning process and set the stage for strong measures and standards to protect and recover the

greater sage-grouse. In order to ensure the success of this process at conserving and recovering greater sage-grouse, the 

agencies must do more than stop sage-grouse decline, they must lay the groundwork for recovery and long-term 

conservation of the species. In order to do this, and in order to comply with agency regulation and policy, it is necessary to 

1) establish conservation measures (including restorative actions) and apply and enforce effective conservation standards 

that will contribute to the recovery of sage-grouse populations across their range and 2) develop a mitigation framework and 

policies that achieve a measurable "net conservation benefit" standard. Only with proactive conservation efforts and an 

insistence that activities that are detrimental to the sage-grouse be effectively mitigated can the species recover. This is 

especially important considering the current status of the species. The sage-grouse is "warranted" for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act, a status indicating that it is not only in decline, but has declined so far as to deserve ESA protections. 

Thus, simply holding steady at the status quo is insufficient.

All Both emc0339GB

843. In the development and application of mitigation measures, the concept of "net conservation benefit" implies a higher bar 

than the traditional goal of "no net loss" and requires a demonstration (verified through outcome monitoring) that benefits 

to habitats or species subject to mitigation requirements will be greater than they would if no development occurred. This 

can be achieved through targeting of mitigation investments to larger-scale, sustained conservation actions (i.e. habitat 

acquisition or restoration of lands in existing ownership) in priority landscapes with broader conservation values that are 

more likely to be sustained over time. Compared to traditional on-site, in-kind mitigation, the landscape approach offers 

developers more flexibility and efficiency in meeting mitigation obligations like a "net conservation benefit" standard; in

exchange, mitigation actions are expected to contribute to broader ecosystem recovery and health, rather than simply

maintaining the status quo.

All Both emc0339GB

844. Coordinate effectively and transparently with other agencies and the public We have significant concerns with the way this 

scoping process is designed. Specifically, the public has been asked to provide input and comments through scoping letters 

without the benefit of knowing how many EISs will be prepared, what areas they will cover, and whether and how existing

and ongoing sage-grouse efforts will be incorporated. Based on what we have been told, different EISs will be looking at 

All Both emc0339GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-166 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

different landscapes and threats throughout the west, but we assert that the outcomes, in terms of the level of protection for 

the sage-grouse, must be consistent across the range. For example, if one Resource Management Plan adopted significantly 

fewer or less effective conservation measures, this would pose a serious problem that runs counter to the purpose of the

planning effort. Given the legitimate concerns that conservation measures will be inconsistently applied and could vary due 

to non-conservation based variables, the federal land management agencies should take all necessary steps within the 

analyses and interactions with the public, to demonstrate how variation in conservation measures, if they do indeed occur, 

will result in sage-grouse conservation across all planning areas and across the range of the species.

845. Effective conservation of the sage-grouse will require agencies and stakeholders to cooperate at all levels of organization. It 

will also be important that BLM and FS work effectively with each other and with other agencies through this process. One 

important shortcoming so far has been the availability of Interim Habitat maps. Both the BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Land Use Planning Strategy (IM 2012-044) and the Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (IM 

2012-043) reference Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat data to identify key sage-grouse habitat, 

dictate management prescriptions and analyze conservation actions within those areas. Both Instruction Memorandums 

suggest that this information is available to the public through the respective state agencies, however, it has been our 

experience that such availability is severely limited or nonexistent, depending on the state agency involved. We urge BLM 

and FS to remedy this as soon as possible and make the Preliminary Priority and General Habitat, as well as all other relevant 

information, available to the public.

All Both emc0339GB

846. The role of the Forest Service in this process is of particular interest to us. The Forest Service operates under wildlife 

protection regulations and policies that are unique from those that govern the BLM. We therefore expect that the Forest 

Service will not only meet all of their existing statutory, regulatory and policy obligations in this conservation and decision 

making process, but will also strive to embrace emerging conservation policy goals found in the newly released National

Forest Management Act planning regulations. For example, on Forest Service planning units, conservation standards must 

ensure viable, resilient and adaptable sage-grouse populations within those planning units. In addition, in order to be 

compatible with new ecosystem and wildlife policy found in the NFMA regulations, conservation planning for sage-grouse 

should also be viewed as an opportunity to not only contribute to the conservation of a candidate species, but to restore the

ecological integrity of Forest Service lands and neighboring land owners with a conservation interest in sage-grouse, for 

example by considering the sage-grouse in forest planning as a focal management species whose conservation condition is 

indicative of the health and integrity of the broader ecosystem.

All USFS emc0339GB

847. Lastly, rather than develop narrow conservation approaches on FS and BLM lands, we would strongly argue that both federal 

land management agencies would benefit from a broader, "all lands" and ecosystem approach to sage-grouse conservation, 

recognizing that the restoration of ecosystem integrity is an overriding goal in agency planning and management policy. In 

fact, conservation and recovery of sage-grouse populations is unlikely to successfully occur without considering the broader 

health of both public and private ownerships within the ecosystem.

All Both emc0339GB

848. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should join the BLM and FS as a partner agency in this process. We strongly 

believe that the existing and potential contributions of the National Wildlife Refuge System to securing a future for greater 

sage-grouse are invaluable and that their integration will result in a final strategy that maximizes the ability of federal land 

All Both emc0339GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-167

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

management agencies to promote sage-grouse conservation. This planning strategy is intended to incorporate regionally 

appropriate, science-based conservation measures into land-use planning efforts throughout the range of the greater 

sage-grouse. Currently, twenty one units of the National Wildlife Refuge System are found within the range of greater 

sage-grouse, covering over one million acres of public land. Understanding what planning successes have been achieved, 

where shortfalls exist and where expansion of the refuge system may be justified will contribute to the success of greater 

sage-grouse conservation and recovery.

849. Incorporate lessons learned in Oregon Some of the sage-grouse management policies currently in place in Oregon at the 

state level provide additional guidance for BLM and FS. For example, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife developed a 

whitepaper outlining habitat mitigation for greater sage-grouse under a core area approach that provides a framework for 

protecting core habitat areas and properly mitigating development in non-core sagebrush steppe areas. This whitepaper is 

attached for your reference in Appendix 2. NOTE: attachment referenced

All Both emc0339GB

850. In addition, Defenders is working within the state of Oregon to advocate for a landscape level approach to planning for 

development in sage-grouse range. Landscape-level planning can provide a forum for balancing the need for siting of new

energy development and transmission facilities with wildlife needs and other conservation values. Geographic information 

systems technology and computer models allow evaluation of alternative future scenarios and assessment of cumulative 

effects. These planning efforts, conducted on a regional scale, would provide the basis for development of a decision support 

tool that provides geographic priorities to guide and inform siting decisions at the state, federal and local levels. Siting 

priorities should balance the need for renewable energy and other development with the needs of wildlife and local 

communities, and represent a shared vision for long-term conservation of natural resources. We encourage the adoption of 

a landscape approach to mitigation in the state of Oregon and by BLM and FS through this planning process. Such an 

approach should be based on conservation priorities and provide more efficient and effective options to offset impacts of 

permitted development.

All Both emc0339GB

851. An additional source of information for analyzing climate impacts across the sagebrush ecosystem are the Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessments (REAs), currently underway at BLM. The assessments are intended to provide a better understanding of 

ecological conditions and to provide the necessary information for better conservation and restoration of ecosystems and 

resources. The BLM and FS should take advantage of the information made available through the final REAs in the coming 

years to provide baseline information for greater sage-grouse management and to help guide decisionmaking toward better 

outcomes that more effectively deal with the threat of climate change.

All Both emc0339GB

852. Maintaining greater sage-grouse population numbers and connectivity throughout the planning area will play a key role in 

preserving the species. The science is clear: the best scenario for improved sage-grouse abundance and distribution is to 

conserve habitats with existing populations and then work outward from those core areas to improve habitats in more 

peripheral areas. Biologically important sage-grouse habitat throughout the range should be managed conservatively, 

including in areas of high renewable energy potential.

All Both emc0339GB

853. We acknowledge that BLM is under tremendous pressure to develop conservation measures for the Greater Sage-grouse 

within an exceptionally short period of time as an effort to ward off listing of the species. However, in addition to our 

concern that BLM is jettisoning its commitment to multiple-use of public lands, we are alarmed that the conservation 

All Both emc0340GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-168 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

measures outlined in the Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse were summarily adopted without public vetting and 

input. The purported "Platinum Standards" were established by a Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) that worked 

with a singular focus without benefit of others with exemplary expertise in the field, most notably the State of Wyoming 

which has developed a collaborative management approach to managing Sage-grouse and its habitat. It also ignored 

comments from the Colorado Division of Wildlife which raised concerns regarding the methods utilized. Before moving 

forward with this extremely narrow and injudicious approach, we recommend that BLM rely upon efforts led by States to 

utilize a collaborative technical team consisting of not just federal agencies but the oil and gas industry, mining, cattlemen 

associations or ranchers, along with other stakeholders to formulate a sensible strategy which can clearly define and 

implement priority habitat selection criteria and disturbance calculation criteria. These State-derived plans must serve as the 

basis for all preferred alternatives since they will support State derived population goals for the birds they own. It should be 

noted that for similar actions, such as the Wyoming Sage Grouse Core Area Executive Order, New Mexico Dunes 

Sagebrush Lizard Conservation Plan, and other species conservation plans, several years were required to finalize properly 

vetted documents which took into consideration the needs and views of the many stakeholders involved. Clearly, as stated 

throughout the December 2011 National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures and Planning Strategy, it will be left 

to state wildlife agencies, the oil and gas industry, and other stakeholders to implement these new conservation and 

monitoring strategies.

854. As described, it is ambiguous how an analysis will be performed to determine priority habitat requirements and boundaries 

within federal management units. It is equally ambiguous how boundaries will be drawn and which criteria will be employed 

when drawing boundaries between priority, general, and associated habitat. Again, the agencies must rely upon the States to 

lead this effort as they are best equipped to identify not only priority habitats but also those lands which provide economic 

sustainability and tax revenues. It is inappropriate for the BLM and Forest Service to make such decisions. Moreover, the 

agencies’ intent to designate priority habitat on non-federal lands must not be made without input from the States even if it 

delays schedules. That the agencies intend to include non-federal lands in a 3% threshold for disturbance in priority habitats 

is of great concern because many of these lands already contain disturbances within sage brush habitat which will result in a 

severe reduction of allowable uses on federal land designated as priority habitat. We strongly urge the agencies to analyze in 

detail in all environmental impact statements a planning alternative which restricts surface disturbance only on federal lands.

All Both emc0340GB

855. BLM’s Sage-grouse planning strategy purports to "strike the appropriate balance of resource uses and resource conservation 

to ensure the short and long-term sustainability of Greater Sage-grouse habitat and populations." As such the federal 

agencies will attempt to incorporate consistent conservation measures as land use planning decisions into all RMPs covering 

occupied habitat by developing land use prescriptions to protect the species. However, the approach recommended is far 

from balanced because it fails to acknowledge that both the Forest Service and BLM are subject to congressionally mandated 

multiple-use missions. Additionally, the planning strategy is clearly designed to usurp the States’ authority to manage 

Sage-grouse populations.

All Both emc0340GB

856. The intent is "to maintain, enhance, or restore conditions that meet Greater Sage-Grouse life historic needs." Since federal 

agencies manage wildlife habitat resources in cooperation with States and partners in an effort to restore habitat for big game 

and improving habitat quality for a large variety of wildlife species, it is important for the agencies to recognize that the oil and 

All Both emc0340GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-169

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

gas industry has been an active participant in a number of such efforts. Industry has gone to great lengths to document the 

effectiveness of mitigation and conservation measures it has implemented in Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming in 

order to minimize potential impacts to the Sage-grouse. In comments submitted in 2008 to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

IPAMS (now Western Energy Alliance) and the American Petroleum Institute provided examples of conservation and 

mitigation measures utilized by the industry around the Greater Sage‐Grouse range. PAW submitted similar comments 

through the Wyoming Governor’s office, which in turn were submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sets of both 

these comments will be submitted as a supplement to these comments due to their size and will be labeled Attachments A 

and B, respectively. We caution, however, that such conservation and mitigation measures are situation‐specific and cannot 

be employed broadly since local conditions and needs must be a major consideration when utilizing these actions.

857. The agencies intend to complete EISs for 68 BLM Field Office RMP amendments as well as select Forest Service (FS) 

management units by September 2014 in order to avoid a potential listing of the Sage-grouse under the Endangered Species 

Act. Due to this very short time-frame, we caution the agencies not to rush to judgment by adopting overly prescriptive 

conservation measures in the interest of expediency. It is crucial for the analyses to consider all relevant scientific data when 

developing management alternatives for each of the EISs and not to rely solely upon the conservation measures included in 

the recently published Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures.

All Both emc0340GB

858. The IM states, "While these conservation measures are range-wide in scale, it is expected that at the regional and 

sub-regional planning scales there may be some adjustments of these conservation measures in order to address local 

ecological site variability...It is anticipated that plans may develop goals and objectives that differ and are specific to individual 

planning areas." We support this acknowledgement that regional and sub-regional conservation measures may require 

divergent conservation measures in order to address local variability. However, it is our view that a minimum of sub-regional 

approach would be most appropriate allowing for local modification as necessary. We also support the direction that BLM 

FOs and Forest Service Ranger Districts do not need to apply the IM policies and procedures in states that have adopted 

their own conservation policies, such as Wyoming. Rather, it is crucial for the agencies to refrain from finalizing the preferred 

alternative until such time that it completes work with States to develop conservation policies and identify priority habitats. 

Again, until the birds are listed under the ESA they are the property of the states.

All Both emc0340GB

859. Furthermore, numerous conservation measures and programs have already been implemented in nine states and others are 

in various stages of preparation in several counties and states which contain sage-grouse habitat through the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). These efforts are taking into account site-specific conditions to ensure 

their effectiveness. Since BLM and the Forest Service are cooperating agencies in these efforts, we urge that these program 

efforts be carefully and fully considered in the analysis process.

All Both emc0340GB

860. Additionally, in order to implement a truly effective management strategy, a comprehensive database is essential to 

maintaining a record of the type, extent, and effectiveness of mitigation measures already in use by the oil and gas industry. 

It would also incorporate all new measures as they are developed to ascertain their effectiveness. Such a database would 

provide an overview of which measures are useful and which should be discarded as ineffective. Without this information, 

the application of adaptive management would be fallacy.

All Both emc0340GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-170 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

861. Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires federal land management agencies to ensure that lease stipulations are 

applied consistently and to ensure that the least restrictive stipulations are utilized to protect many of the resource values 

to be addressed. Therefore, even though the analyses will be developing conservation strategies for the Sage-grouse, BLM is 

required to adhere to BLM policy that requires "the least restrictive stipulation that effectively accomplishes the resource 

objectives or uses for a given alternative should be used." In addition, it is also necessary to clearly demonstrate that less 

restrictive measures were considered but found insufficient to protect the Sage-grouse. A simple statement that there are 

conflicting resource values or uses does not justify the application of restrictions. Discussion of the specific requirements of 

a resource to be safeguarded, along with a discussion of the perceived conflicts between it and oil and gas activities must be 

provided. Clearly, an examination of less restrictive measures must be a fundamental element of a balanced analysis and 

documented accordingly in the EISs. We are concerned that the protection measures included in the Interim Guidance is, 

in many cases, overly restrictive, particularly for a game species that is currently unlisted. In fact, it appears that certain 

conservation measures exceed those required to protect candidate species. Moreover, it appears BLM is attempting to ward 

off listing of the Sage-grouse by recommending constraints that exceed those implemented for listed species. Again, Greater 

Sage-grouse are owned by the states and BLM must manage toward the State’s population management goals.

All BLM emc0340GB

862. For many years the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with partners to help them develop Candidate Conservation 

Agreements (CCAs). CCAs have primarily been developed by Federal agencies to cover Federal lands; and several have 

resulted in conservation efforts that made listing unnecessary. The primary goal of a CCA is to guide conservation measures 

and efforts in order to make listing unnecessary for the covered species. Even if the species covered by a CCA ends up being 

listed in the future, the robustness of the CCA in providing for the conservation of the covered species provides 

considerable certainty to all involved parties. This is because the Conference Opinion associated with the Incidental Take 

Statement (which covers relevant Federal agency actions associated with implementation of the CCA, including activities by 

non-Federal property owners on Federal lands) could be adopted as a Biological Opinion. It should be noted that this would 

be possible only if the agreed-upon actions are properly implemented and no significant new information or changes in 

conditions have occurred. Consequently, we recommend that BLM defer to existing CCA’s when amending the RMPs in 

order to provide continued certainty to CCA participants rather than developing a whole new set of conservation measures.

All BLM emc0340GB

863. Fundamentally, we do not support preparation of RMP amendments or supplements for integrating new management 

standards for Sage-grouse. It is our belief that the standards developed by the NTT are based upon inherently flawed 

scientific assumptions which have no factual basis and will severely impede the benefits of multiple-use activities on public 

lands in the West. Having made that position clear, we recognize that BLM and the Forest Service are following management 

direction to conduct these new analyses. Therefore, it is crucial for the agencies to work closely with State governments and 

stakeholders to ensure that all new federal management strategies take into account local State expertise as well as 

socio-economic priorities within these areas. We also urge BLM to recognize the measures already in place to reduce 

impacts to Sage-grouse populations and habitat when developing these new management standards. Finally, it is important 

for all new standards to be formulated and implemented at the local level rather than applying them on a region-wide basis.

All Both emc0340GB

864. The sage-grouse is an imperiled icon of the Sagebrush Sea. Federal departments and agencies manage more than 70 percent 

of remaining sagebrush steppe. Although cooperation among many federal and state agencies and private land owners will be 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-171

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

necessary to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat, the federal government and federal public land are key to achieving 

these goals. The BLM and Forest Service have an important opportunity to address decades of mismanagement and habitat 

loss and set a new course to protect and restore sagebrush steppe for sage-grouse and hundreds of other species. We look 

forward to participating in the planning process ahead.

865. Maps should be provided to clarify the Instruction Memorandum (IM) statement (page 1, under Purpose), “The Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse, bi-state distinct population segment in California and Nevada, and the Washington State distinct population 

segment are not covered by this IM and will be addressed through other policies and planning efforts.” Does this mean 

Nevada is not impacted by or covered under the policies outlined in this IM?

All Both emc0147GB

866. Past uses and current leases should be grandfathered under this IM. Biological surveys were conducted as part of the 

required NEPA review that took place when BLM approved the original application, and sage grouse impacts would have 

been included in those surveys. Impacts should have been identified and mitigation measures applied at that time.

All Both emc0147GB

867. The introduction of “appropriate offsite mitigation that the BLM, coordinating with the respective state wildlife agency, 

determines would avoid or minimize habitat and population-level effects” needs to be clarified and released for public 

comment as it can significantly increase the cost of a ROW permit (mitigation fees and/or habitat impact offset land 

purchases) and development or approval timelines. Before this IM is implemented, an outline specifying the cost per acre 

required as an offset or amount of replacement land needed for each acre disturbed should be completed to ensure

consistency in application across field offices and state offices, as well as development a policy if no appropriate offsite 

mitigation is available for the impacted population. This will greatly reduce economic uncertainty for all involved.

All Both emc0147GB

868. BLM field or other offices should not “defer making a final decision on an application until the completion of the LUP [Land 

Use Plan] process,” as this may or will delay projects by years, depending on the status of the applicable LUP.

All Both emc0147GB

869. The IM acknowledges that additional time and monetary costs will be incurred for added review, analysis, planning, 

coordination, and implementation under the IM. However, the magnitude of the costs is not addressed. Given the additional 

work mandated by the IM, added costs are likely to be large, and should be quantified. More reasonable consideration of sage 

grouse protection alternatives (e.g., only requiring extensive analysis on new projects) would result in reduced IM 

implementation costs.

All Both emc0147GB

870. Title 7 of the Nye County Code requests that federal and agencies coordinate with Nye County and the Board of 

Commissioners when pending actions affect local communities or citizens. Further, coordination is also required under 

Section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Because the actions and restrictions described in 

the IM will affect local communities and development in Nye County, and because the actions may conflict with Nye 

County’s existing Land Use Plans, the county requests that BLM coordinate with Nye County.

All Both emc0147GB

871. Finally, Nye County formally requests Cooperating Agency status on the Greater Sage- Grouse National Strategy 

Environmental Impact Statement.

All Both emc0147GB

872. NOGA has concern with the maps that will be used to detmmme Priority Habitat and General Habitat. These maps were 

made available in Nevada on or about March 16, 2012- just one week prior to the deadline for comments. This was not 

sufficient time to allow our membership to review the maps and identify any need for corrections, Given the reliance of the 

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-172 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

implementation of the sage-grouse conservation measures on the location of Priority and General Habitats, we believe these 

maps should be labeled as ''DRAFT" at this time and there should be opportunity to modify the maps as information is 

checked With just a few days to view the maps prepared in Nevada, there are obvious errors - areas of salt desert shrub 

vegetation that are identified as sage-grouse habitat. To our knowledge, there is no scientific literature lhat documents 

sage-grouse use of lhese areas, and certainly not as Priority Habitat. The woik done locally in Ellro County through the 

Notiheastem Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc. (NNSG) includes over three million acres of on-the-ground assessments 

based on ecological sites. This information was available to the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and Elko District 

BLM and was not even considered in the mapping effort. The brood-scale mapping the agencies have used to identify 

sage-grouse habitat was conducted at a much coarser scale, with little or no ground-truthing. As such, the Agencies mappmg 

effort is subject ro errors and simplifications. 'These errors and simplifications can he addressed during baseline data 

collection, but only if the mapping effort is ongoing. The National Technical Team (NTT) report (NTT 2O11} places great 

emphasis on the maps which identify Priority Habitat and General Habitat, and the NOGA is not aware of any public input 

to these maps. Therefore, the NOGA requests that an opportunity must be reserved at the activity-authorization level for 

affected parties to conffirm the maps proposed for use in the EIS.

873. The documents attached show significant support that the Greater Sage Grouse issues that the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) have address are mostly due to their own agency's doing. The documents attached show that the 

Greater Sage Grouse numbers of the 1960s and 1970s were in fact due to predator control measures implemented by the 

FWS under a division called Predator and Rodent Control (PARC). The studies attached will also show that FWS is 

responsible for the numbers at present due to protection of predators under the Endangered Species Act and lack of tools 

due to their abuse of those same tools in different era. Meaning: they (FWS) used those tools so aggressively that they were 

banned or species were protected. I am not stating that these numbers are bad or good at any time in the past or present. 

But, it does show that FWS actions were mostly responsible for the change in numbers.

All Both emc0240GB, 

emc0096RM

874. Eco-systems adjust to their environment all the time without any impacts due to "man". They adjust accordingly with inputs 

due to "man" also. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was written with this in mind. It's intent was to make sure 

that "man" managed it's natural resources with the mission for it to be to "the benefit of mankind". It is obvious that due to 

high productivity of federal lands for domestic meat and fiber, as well as our increase in wildlife production, predator 

numbers also increase. This in turn, impacts the whole eco-system which included both domestic and wildlife species.

All Both emc0240GB, 

emc0096RM

875. The FWS is trying to accuse Federal Land Management Agencies of mismanagement of Sage Grouse. When, in fact, it was all 

due to their own agency control or lack of control of predators and protection of certain species that in fact are responsible 

for decline of other species. Just look at Wolves vs. Elk.

All Both emc0240GB, 

emc0096RM

876. The FWS is in total control of the Pittman - Robertson monies to state wildlife agencies. They are forcing state wildlife 

agencies to use these resources in the future to manage their mistakes (FWS).

All Both emc0240GB, 

emc0096RM

877. In conclusion: The Sage Grouse Issue at hand is not due to poor management of the Federal Land Management Agencies. It 

is not due to poor management of the State Wildlife Agencies. The responsibility of the decline (that is by nature ... normal) 

in Greater Sage Grouse populations rest solely on the poor management and poor decisions made by the United State 

Federal Fish and Wildlife Service.

All Both emc0240GB, 

emc0096RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-173

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

878. Let us look at FWS identified threats from most to least threatening with comments: 1. Invasive Species: Intense fires due to 

reduced grazing and timber harvest. Sterilization of seeds and cones; and a welcoming of noxious weeds. 2. Infrastructure: 

Want energy .... need powerlines. 3. Wildfire: More intense and hotter due to poor management and lack of harvest which 

is mostly due to FWS direction. 4. Agriculture: Very little merit to back this up. Show me the data. Has been some loss of

habitat due to getting rid of big sage. Most of this however is on private ground and not under the supervision of the FWS.

5. Grazing: Show me the data. Should state: "Lack of Grazing". 6. Oil and Gas: Studies show that is only temporary. After 

development, Sage Grouse use habitat in question. 7. Coal and strip mining: Great reclamation and only temporary lack of 

resource for Sage Grouse. 8. Urbanization: Acres developed is very small in comparison to total sage grouse habitat. 9. 

Weather: Natural and not an issue to be addressed 10. Conifer Invasion: Keep up the ESA enforcement of certain species 

and we will not have to worry about this due to all the conifers burning up. 11. Human: FWS personnel especially. It was FWS 

management that has increased and decreased Sage Grouse populations. 12. Predation: #1 issue with all studies in Montana 

and FWS puts down as #12. FWS should take responsibility for actions of the past and present. 13. Disease: Less than 5% of 

losses at best. 14. Water Development: I am assuming that they are addressing West Nile Virus and other. Studies show that 

is less than 5% of loss of females (< 2.5% of female population). 15. Prescribed Fire: No need for most prescribed fire in Sage 

Grouse habitat. Just graze it more intensely. 16. Hard Rock Mining: I have no idea how this would impact Sage Grouse unless 

it is noise. 17. Hunting: We have addressed hunting as an issue for a long time. If you have 50% losses (75% of that 

contributed to predators) and 10% by hunting.... You don't have very many live ones to work with. Control predators, and 

hunting is not an issue. 18. Climate Change: Don't know 19. Contaminates: Don't know. It is obvious that the identified 

threats are:  Predators Invasive species mostly due to very hot wildfire and  the Untied States Fish and Wildlife 

Service because of the lack of checks and balances on the agency. They run the show with no oversight.

All Both emc0240GB, 

emc0096RM

879. Our review found that the US Fish and Wildlife Service's own determinations show that greater sage-grouse is not legally 

qualified for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Yet the BLM is now proposing (and implementing under their 

December 2011 Instruction Memorandums) unnecessary sage-grouse conseryaljon measures that have and will nmatively 

imoact most economic activities across the species eotire range, increasing the regulatory cost and burden to conduct 

natural resource related activities, both commercial and recreational, and significantly impeding or virtually eliminating such 

activities. Because the greater sage-grouse is not legally qualified for listing as "endangered" or '"threatened" under the 

Endangered Species Act, the BLM's proposed actions and interim management directions under the December 2011 

Instruction Memorandums are unreasonable and unwarranted and need to be withdrawn.

All Both emc0251GB, 

em0101RM

880. If regulatory/policy controls to minimize human disturbance have failed to allow GSG populations to flourish within the vast 

wilderness areas and other nationally designated conservation areas, then it is unreasonable to apply such draconian control 

measures to broad landscapes beyond the boundaries of these areas in the vain hope that such regulation will somehow 

work in other locations. To implement regulatory mechanisms that are certain to severely interfere with other valid existing 

uses of the landscape and negatively impact local and regional economies in the face of evidence that such mechanisms did 

not reverse the plight of the GSG in these nationally designated areas would be unreasonable, irrational, and 

counter-productive. Instead, if the minimum effective population of GSG necessary to protect the species from extinction 

cannot be supported within such nationally designated areas, then management practices that were in place when greater 

All Both emc0251GB, 

em0101RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-174 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse populations dramatically increased from the mid 1800s to early 1900s need to be identified and implemented 

again in other areas, including increased livestock grazing to reduce wildfire fuel loads, and concerted predator control 

practices

881. The December 27, 2011 BLM IMs7 instruct all BLM Field Officials in all program areas to consider and implement specific 

GSG conservation measures contained in the associated December 21, 2001 BLM Report8 when conducting projects within

“Preliminary Priority Habitat.” “Preliminary Priority Habitat” is currently delineated to encompass essentially all of the 

highest quality breeding habitat that supports 75% of the known current breeding population, which includes approximately 

27% of the occupied range of the GSG (see Doherty,6 page 2). These BLM IMs pre-decide the outcome of the proposed 

project to prepare EISs to incorporate GSG conservation measures into land use plans

All Both emc0251GB, 

em0101RM

882. The BLM IMs assume that conservation of “Preliminary Priority Habitat” is necessary to prevent the species from being listed 

under the ESA, and assume that the conservation measures identified in the associated BLM Report will ultimately be 

imposed as regulatory mechanisms to protect GSG. However, public input through this scoping process and subsequent 

review steps required before finalizing the proposed project may result in a completely different final decision regarding what 

actions, if any, need to be taken to avoid the presumed need to list the GSG under the ESA. In fact, as discussed herein, there 

is ample evidence that the GSG does not legally qualify for listing under the ESA, and the proposed planning process could 

well result in documentation of such evidence so that no further action is needed to prevent the GSG from being listed when 

the FWS makes its final listing determination by the year 2015. The decision and action to assume otherwise and immediately 

implement draconian sage-grouse conservation measures through the BLM IMs within “Preliminary Priority Habitat” based 

upon guidelines in the BLM Report makes a mockery of the current planning process and its alleged public scoping and 

comment opportunities. If decisions regarding GSG conservation measures and the landscapes to which they will apply has 

already been made, why pretend to seek public input regarding the issues and alternatives to consider regarding sage-grouse 

conservation? On the other hand, if the decisions have not yet been made, why impose preliminary actions upon a vast area 

of land when those actions may ultimately be found to be altogether unwarranted, counterproductive, or only necessary on 

a much smaller scale?

All Both emc0251GB, 

em0101RM

883. On their face, the BLM IMs both indicate that the instructions promote “sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations” (IM 

2012-043 at pages 1 and 2, and IM 2012-044 at page 2)7. Such an objective is consistent with a goal to maintain the minimum 

effective population needed to safeguard the species from extinction, and thus avoid the purported need for the species to 

be listed under the ESA. In other words, the minimum sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse population is equivalent to the 

minimum effective population (as high as 5,000 breeding adults) needed to provide sufficient genetic material to protect the 

species from the long-term risk of extinction. As discussed above, a minimum effective population as high as 5,000 birds 

comprises less than 1.5% of the current GSG breeding population, and requires less than 0.25% of the total acreage in the 

occupied range for support. While the IMs imply that the goal of BLM GSG conservation is to promote sustainable Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations, they then irrationally provide instructions to provide conservation protections to 75% of the 

current GSG breeding population (50 times as many birds) across a landscape that is more than 100 times larger than the 

area needed by the minimum effective population (27% of the occupied GSG range rather than 0.25%). The massive 

expansion of the conservation goal (from one intended to promote a sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse population to one 

All Both emc0251GB, 

em0101RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-175

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

that directs the promotion of 50 times as large a population on more than 100 times as much land as is needed) is the

outgrowth of a subtle change in wording contained in the goal statement of the BLM Report. Page 6 of the BLM Report8 

states that the BLM “endorsed the goal” of the Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et. al., 

2006) “to maintain and enhance populations and distribution of sage‐grouse by protecting and improving sagebrush habitats 

and ecosystems that sustain these populations” (underlined emphasis added). Note that the goal endorsed by the BLM 

Report to “sustain these populations” changes the ESA compliant goal of maintaining a sustainable population (minimum 

effective population) to safeguard the GSG from extinction to an expanded goal to maintain or enhance current populations. 

Since current GSG populations are so much larger than the minimum effective population, the expanded goal to sustain 

current populations requires conservation of many more birds over a much larger landscape than would be required by the 

ESA to merely protect the species from the risk of long-term extinction. Thus, while the Notice of Intent states that the 

purpose of the EIS process is to “avoid a potential listing” of the GSG under the ESA, the conservation measures identified 

for analysis under the EIS process, and already implemented by the BLM IMs, actually provide ESA styled protections to far 

more GSG over a much larger landscape than would be the case if the populations were to actually dwindle to the point that 

they met the criteria for listing under the ESA.

884. Minimum Breeding Density Area Alternative The December 2011 BLM IMs direct that specific GSG conservation measures 

be implemented within “Preliminary Priority Habitat” which is currently delineated to roughly correspond to the 75% 

Breeding Density Area mapped by Doherty (footnote 6). The 75% Breeding Density Area (area that encompasses 75% of the 

current GSG population upon about 27% of the occupied habitat) identified as “Preliminary Priority Habitat” under these 

instructions exceeds a minimum effective population as high as 5,000 by more than 50 times, and exceeds the acreage 

needed to support the minimum effective population by more than 100 times. If the Breeding Density Area concept is to be 

used as a strategy to manage GSG for the purpose of avoiding the need to list the species under the ESA, only the minimum

Breeding Density Area necessary to maintain the minimum effect population needs to be identified and conserved. As 

calculated in Table 1 on page 18 herein, a sage-grouse conservation measure designed to maintain current populations in a 

3% Breeding Density Area would sustain 15,963 GSG in Management Zones I – V, which is 3.2 times a minimum effective 

population as high as 5,000 birds. Thus, management to maintain current populations in a 3% Breeding Density Area would 

be more than sufficient to avoid the purported need to list the species under the ESA. The BLM proposed alternative to 

impose sage-grouse conservation measures to maintain or enhance current populations across a 75% Breeding Density Area 

is a vast overreach of what is reasonable to achieve the stated purpose of the Notice of Intent and avoid the presumed need 

to list the species under the ESA.

All Both emc0251GB, 

em0101RM

885. Sage-Grouse Count and Trends in Areas of Restricted Man-Made Disturbance Military reservations, national parks, 

wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and wildlife refuges are all large landscapes managed to greatly restrict major 

man-made disturbances. In that respect, they provide current environmental examples of any hoped-for result of land-use 

protocols that would be enacted by the EIS. 1. What are the bird counts within these restricted land-use areas? 2. Is the 

count more than the trigger value to list the sage-grouse as T & E? 3. What is the population trend of sage-grouse in these 

areas? 4. If the trend is up, will there be enough birds within these restricted land-use areas to prevent T & E listing? 5. If the 

trend is down, why will land-use protocols intended to restrict and control anthropogenic disturbances increase sage-grouse 

All Both emc0250GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-176 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

populations?

886. Man-Made Disturbance in Areas of Low-Quality and Degraded Sage-Grouse Habitat There should be a positive, proactive 

relationship between sage grouse, man-made disturbance, and restoration of low-quality and degraded sagebrush 

communities (R-values as explained in the attachment: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Categorization). Because sage grouse 

habitat is a special issue, we need a special classification of disturbance pertinent to the issue. On a case by case basis, we 

need a disturbance classification that supersedes permitted disturbance limits (e.g., 5 acres per notice on BLM administered 

lands, Plan of Operations, and EAs) and that makes consideration for low quality or degraded (R3/X3 juniper/pinion 

encroachment and R4/X4 cheat grass and noxious weeds) sage-grouse habitat. All disturbances must be bonded and 

reclaimed, at operator's expense, to appropriate vegetation. In sage-grouse country, that vegetation would be suitable for 

sage-grouse habitat. To the extent that disturbance can be conducted on or routed through low quality sage-grouse habitat, 

especially R3/X3 and R4/X4 areas, reclamation can only improve, not degrade, habitat for sage-grouse. In these areas, 

disturbance and its requisite reclamation to sage-grouse habitat should be encouraged by not having the disturbance count 

against the permitted limit. This is one way to get the sage-grouse habitat issue to win-win through multiple use of the land.

All Both emc0250GB

887. Predation and fires are immediate events. Habitat control and management are long term solutions which cannot 

immediately protect sage grouse from predation and fires. By agency policy ravens are now provided subsidized 

hyperpredation of sage grouse. By agency policy, fire potential cannot be substantially reduced since grazing down fuel loads 

requires lengthy bureaucratic permission rather than a rancher’s immediate seasonal decision. Predation control through 

either poisoned bait (eggs) or small bore firearms can be immediately effective. Fire control through free-market grazing 

decisions of cattlemen or sheep growers can be effective in protecting sage grouse within one climate season. Bureaucratic 

habitat control will take no less than multiple budget cycles, and personnel reviews, before any agency even begins to be an 

effective advocate for the benefit of sage grouse.

All Both emc0274GB

888. The agencies’ most desired actions are high-cost, high-personnel endeavors. Those require additional employees, facilities, 

and fleets. The most effective of these in helping the bird is firefighting. The need for firefighting can be most effectively 

reduced by allowing ranchers and farmers to go about their business using their own judgment, without agency interference.

Agricultural production historically has supported sage grouse populations by coincidentally providing both food and shelter.

All Both emc0274GB

889. The apparent agency refusal to seriously consider predation and fire in the survivability of the sage grouse assures not only 

the endangered species listing of the sage grouse, but in fact the actual endangerment of the species. Extinction will not be 

the fault of the rancher nor the hunter nor the industrial worker. Sage grouse extinction will be the fault of the 

politically-correct scientist and the politically-correct bureaucrat.

All Both emc0274GB

890. We are concerned that BLM not develop a ‘one size fits all’ GSG management strategy. We have experience with GSG 

range-wide, from the uplands of Nevada through the northern and central Rocky Mountains of Montana, Wyoming, Utah 

and Colorado and into the northern Great Plains of eastern Wyoming and Montana. The weather, soils, vegetation and 

ecology of these areas varies across the range, and to a degree the GSG has adapted to this variation. Having spent the past 

6 or more years working with Local Sage Grouse Working groups across the range, I (R. Danvir) have been impressed with 

the dedication, knowledge, insight and creativity expressed by the people who know these areas - their ability to identify 

All Both emc0281GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-177

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

stressors, threats and solutions to maintain or enhance GSG in their area. These local Working Groups included BLM 

biologists and range conservationists. The quickest way to lose the support of these hundreds of dedicated people is to 

disregard the hard work and existing GSG Local Working Group Conservation Plans already done. It is absolutely essential 

that BLM management henceforth recognizes and incorporates the work of the local working groups throughout the range 

of the GSG, and maintains their adaptive management approach

891. NOGA has concern with the maps that will be used to determine Priority Habitat and General Habitat. These maps were 

made available in Nevada on or about March 16, 2012 - just one week prior to the deadline for comments. This was not 

sufficient time to allow our membership to review the maps and identify any need for corrections. Given the reliance of the 

implementation of the sage-grouse conservation measures on the location of the Priority and General Habitats, we believe 

these maps should be labeled as "DRAFT" at this time and there should be opportunity to modify the maps as information is 

checked. With just a few days to view the maps prepared in Nevada, there are obvious errors - areas of salt desert shrub 

vegetation that are identified as sage-grouse habitat. To our knowledge, there is no scientific literature that documents 

sage-grouse use of these areas, and certainly not as Priority Habitat. The work done locally in Elko County through the 

Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group, Inc. (NNSG) includes over three million acres of on-the-ground assessments 

based on ecological sites. This information was available to the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and Elko District 

BLM and was not even considered in the mapping effort. The broad-scale mapping the agencies have used to identify 

sage-grouse habitat was conducted at a much coarser scale, with little or no ground-truthing. As such, the agencies' mapping 

effort is subject to errors and simplifications. These errors and simplifications can be addressed during baseline data 

collection, but only if the mapping effort is ongoing. The National Technical Team (NTT) report (NTT 2011) places great 

emphasis on the maps which identify Priority Habitat and General Habitat, and the NOGA is not aware of any public input 

to these maps. Therefore, the NOGA requests that an opportunity must be reserved at the activity-authorization level for 

affected parties to confirm the maps propsed for use in the EIS.

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM

892. The agencies have been managing public lands in Nevada based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The 

emphasis of the NTT conservation measures is single-species management. There is a plethora of issues that affect 

sage-grouse and the conservation measures only address anthropogenic activities. Perhaps these measures should be 

considered as a last resort. The BLM and USFS must address noxious weeds, wildfires, pinyon-juniper encroachment, and 

other habitat issues before curtailing land uses. Diseases, hunting, predation, and other causes of direct mortality should be 

addressed before curtailing land uses. The NOGA believes that the best way to provide for protection of the sage-grouse, 

while simultaneously allowing continued economic development, is for BLM to develop conservation measures in 

cooperation with the regulated community that include a strong but pragmatic mitigation program.

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM

893. The NOGA was pleased to see the mention and use of Ecological Site Descriptions and State and Transition Models to 

identify seasonal habitats, guide habitat management, and influence fire rehabilitation efforts. This information is 

science-based and provides insight on how the habitats can be managed for long-term sustainability.

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM

894. Overall, we find the conservation measures to be very negative and restrictive. There is no attempt to identify positive 

conservation measures that improve habitat; although the goal is to "Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and 

distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem." There should be some room in this goal for 

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-178 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

including conservation measures that actively improve habitat quality.

895. The goal of the conservation measures as indicated on page 6 of the NTT report is to "Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse 

abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend 

in cooperation with other conservation partners." There are a lot of concepts included in this goal that need clarification. For 

example, to increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution implies that other resource uses will be diminished and how 

will that decision be made? The sagebrush ecosystem is a disturbance based system in Nevada, where fire, floods, insect 

outbreaks, and drought have removed sagebrush from areas of the landscape for periods of time and perennial grasses and 

forbs dominate after the disturbance. This is followed by a period of time when grasses, forbs, and young shrubs are present, 

and as the shrubs increase in stature and abundance, the grasses and forbs decline until there is a sagebrush-dominated plant 

community, ready for the next disturbance. If "conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem" means 

maintaining these various phases of the sagebrush community on the landscape, then many land uses can be accommodated. 

However, the report implies that only the sagebrush-dominated phase is important. We disagree and believe that a healthy 

ecosystem is one with many phases of the sagebrush ecosystem present on the landscape. This concept is much more in 

concert with the Ecological Site Descriptions and the State and Transition Models being developed by Natural Resource 

Conservation Service.

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM

896. We support the use of Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) for conducting range health assessments as the ESD concept 

includes the use of State and Transition Models that document the various community phases for each ecological site, as well 

as the thresholds that require management actions to avoid crossing thresholds. These concepts are important in 

maintaining the integrity of ecological sites, sustainability of range resources, and maintaining "intact sagebrush" (as defined 

by including all the community phases of an ecological site, including grass-dominated conditions following disturbance).

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM

897. In closing, the NOGA supports the concept of enhancing sage-grouse populations and habitat. But the conservation 

measures in the NTT report create real concerns that socio-economic and ecological impacts will occur by implementing 

these conservation measures, but very few gains in sage-grouse populations or habitat will be realized by implementing these 

conservation measures. We encourage the BLM and USFS to conduct a full, thorough, and objective analysis of these 

conservation measures. We also request that the BLM and USFS consider an alternative that allows for energy and mineral 

development and sustained livestock management, and includes the opportunity to mitigate the impacts that these activities 

may cause. Simply not continuing multiple-use activities on public land is not the answer to the sage-grouse listing issue.

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM

898. NOGA is concerned about, among other things, the practical, on-the-ground implications of the agencies' proposed 

conservation measures. The proposed EIS should clarify that the measures will recognize the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield. Also, the proposal should allow flexibility for the agencies to develop conservation measures in cooperation 

with the regulated community that include a strong but pragmatic mitigation program while simultaneously allowing 

continued economic development.

All Both emc0239GB, 

emc0095RM

899. First we'd like to acknowledge that managing federal lands and resources is an extraordinarily difficult job. As you know well, 

the list of laws that must be complied with is long, the variety of lands and natural resources to take into account are near 

limitless, and the uses proposed for the land can range from a picnic to open‐pit mining. The job is complicated by 

All Both emc0254GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-179

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

understaffing, other federal and state agency jurisdictions, federal policy and priority changes, the need to respond to new 

science, and the impossibility of making decisions for all natural resources and all uses on all lands without site‐specific 

review. That last issue bears heavily on the goals of conservation of Sage Grouse habitat and protection of areas of known 

Sage Grouse occupation. Land and Resource Management Plans can provide broad guidance. A Sage Grouse Programmatic 

EIS and the data gathered for it can provide broad guidance on one issue - and the broad-brush maps developed so far. But 

their utility must be limited to first‐level screening.

900. NGP urges the agencies to ensure that you do not create a situation where, once mapped for a particular management 

direction, the direction cannot be changed in the face of new scientific evidence without an EIS. We recommend that clear 

language provide for a process for changes to or variances in implementation supported by appropriate site‐specific studies.

All Both emc0254GB

901. The proposed amendments to the must integrate the recommendations made in the Geothermal Leasing Programmatic EIS 

(ROD issued December 17, 2008) and the West‐wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS (ROD issued January 14, 2009) 

The Federal Global Climate Change Initiative and Policy Book "includes a goal to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the 

US economy by 18 percent over the ten‐year period from 2002 to 2012 and to provide initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions, including encouraging renewable energy sources development." Geothermal PEIS at 1.8.3 (emphasis added). 

While both documents defer to site specific constraints, each represents an attempt to define priority areas of energy and 

transmission land use by the agency.

All Both emc0254GB

902. All suitable sage grouse habitat (over 40 million acres of federal land) cannot be preserved. Suitable preservation areas, of 

manageable size, should be considered with energy development and existing rights maintained. The agencies must balance 

not only resource development and species preservation, but preservation programs with agency resources. We encourage 

a program where the proposed action is well funded and well staffed with a realistic scope. If the proposed action is to 

succeed in serving to mitigate listing of the species, the program must be shown to have a high probability of success.

All Both emc0254GB

903. Current mitigation measures should be reviewed for effectiveness and revised where they are demonstrated to fall short. 

Geothermal projects have long existed and are being developed under current sage grouse mitigation rules. We know of no 

instance where a geothermal project has adversely impacted the species. The geothermal industry has long been aware of 

species constraints and worked with the agencies with mitigation and monitoring programs within the projects’ area of 

interest. We encourage an evaluation of present mitigation in terms of energy development and focus placed upon areas 

where such measures are falling short.

All Both emc0254GB

904. COMMENTS ON "A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures" produced by the Sage‐Grouse 

National Technical :Team (NTT) One of the objectives of the NTT report is to manage priority sage‐grouse habitats so 

that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage‐grouse habitat regardless of ownership. 

Additionally, in priority habitats where the 3% disturbance threshold is already exceeded, to prohibit further anthropogenic 

disturbances until enough habitat has been restored to maintain the area under this threshold. This is a problem because it 

has the potential to prohibit development in vast tracks of public lands for years, if not decades, regardless of the status of 

the species, its habitat, or the specific impacts or mitigations from any such proposed development.

All Both emc0254GB

905. Samson supports the development of management policies that will prevent the species from being listed, but is concerned All Both emc0246GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-180 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

that the protection measures and restrictions included in the Interim Guidance Instructional Memorandum (IM) and the 

National Technical Team's Report an National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (the "Report") are excessively 

restrictive for a species that is not currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

906. Samson supports the process of requesting and compiling public comments for use by agencies such as the BLM, for their 

consideration when undertaking an important project, but to ensure that the planning process Is fully informed by the 

interests of those that will be impacted by future management restrictions for GSG, we recommend that BLM consider 

forming a collaborative technical stakeholder team consisting of not just agencies but the oil and gas industry, mining. 

Cattlemen, ranchers and others to develop a strategy to clearly define and implement a priority habitat selection criteria 

along with disturbance calculation criteria before September 2014. For similar type actions such as the Wyoming Sage 

Grouse Core Area Executive Order, Dunes Sagebrush lizard Conservation Plan, and other species conservation plans, 

several years were needed to finalize a properly vetted document agreed to by many of the stakeholders involved. In 

addition, it will be up to the BLM, state wildlife agencies, the oil and gas industry, and other stakeholders to implement 

mitigation strategies as prescribed by the amendments for each respective BLM resource area.

All BLM emc0246GB

907. Samson appreCiates BLM's decision to allow state GSG conservation policies to supersede the Interim Management IM after 

approval by the USFWS and adoption by BLM In a state-specific IM, such as Wyoming. Rather than top-down, federal 

directives, GSG conservation should be guided by initiatives developed at the state and local levels. Accordingly, Samson 

supports the western states in their efforts to develop common-sense and consistent management practices for GSG.

All Both emc0246GB

908. Nevertheless,\we are concerned whether BLM intends to be bound by anyone plan. BLM should refrain from selectively 

choosing a policy document that best suits its management needs on a case-by-case basis. If BLM issues a state-level IM that 

would supersede the Interim Guidance IM, only the state plan should be used to guide management deciSions, rather than a 

combination of state and federal plans.

All BLM emc0246GB

909. In addition, for those states with management plans for GSG that have been approved by USFWS and adopted by BlM 

through the issuance of a state-level IM, the RMPs in that state should be amended to incorporate the state's policy in its 

entirety, not the conservation measures in the NTTs Report.

All Both emc0246GB

910. BLM must consider and analyze the conservation measures from the Report in at least one alternative in each EIS or SEIS for 

each BLM resource area. The conservation measures that could ultimately be incorporated into RMPs may be incompatible 

with existing statutes or regulations (such as a taking of private property rights), drive out stakeholder Investment, and 

conflict with federally issued leases and job creation activities.

All BLM emc0246GB

911. We also urge BLM to amend conservation measures and best management practices (BMP's) into RMPs that have been 

recommended by local working groups, are the results of survey reports, and credible information about the status of GSG 

and its habitat within the planning area covered by that RMP. Broadly applying the conservation measures in the Report 

without a thorough examination of the condition of the species in a speCific area could result In unjustified and unreasonable 

restrictions on multiple-use development under the amended RMP. Conservation and mitigation measures should be 

developed on a case-by-case basis and must be informed by local conditions and information. Numerous cbnservation 

measures and programs have already been implemented across the range of GSG through the Western AssOCiation of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). These efforts take into account site-specific conditions to ensure their effectiveness.

All BLM emc0246GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-181

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

912. In the Report, the BLM NITs stated objective for this planning strategy effort was "to ... conserve and restore the greater 

sage-grouse and Its habitat on BLM-adminlstered lands on a range-wide basis over the long term." [Emphasis added) We 

object to this statement because restoring sage grouse numbers is not under purview of BLM. Further, the conservation 

measures identified in the Report, which have been crafted to meet this objective, are extremely restrictive and go far 

beyond what is necessary to protect a non-listed species. We ask you to clarify that restoring the species and its habitat is 

not part of this planning effort.

All BLM emc0246GB

913. Throughout this process, BLM should not amend any aspects of the RMPs except those related to GSG management. Doing 

so would be outside the scope of this planning effort.

All BLM emc0246GB

914. Samson is very concerned about the limited timeframe of this planning effort and feels that BlM may not be able to complete 

the efforts outlined in the Planning Direction 1M by the end of FY 2014. BLM struggles to meet existing obligations such as 

monitoring, inspection & enforcement, project NEPA processing, and permitting at current staffing levels, yet must now 

rededicate significant resources to updating 68 RMPs by September 2014. Normally, updating even a single RMP takes 

several years. We are concerned that the timeline will lead to a NEPA process that does not rely on science, and therefore 

may not be defensible under the Data Quality Act.

All BLM emc0246GB

915. BLM field offices may also need additional resources to Institute the management policies set forth in the Interim Guidance 

IM and the RMP amendments. Speciflcally, BlM field offices may require additional staff with relevant expertise to administer 

new greater sage-grouse management requirements for individual projects, such as developing polygons for density 

restrictions within priority habitat areas. Additionally, BLM must ensure that the preparation of the EIS and subsequent RMP 

amendments does not prevent BlM field office employees from regularly processing NEPA documents, Applications for 

Permits to Drill (APD), and sundry notices in a timely manner. The administrative efficiency of BlM field offices is directly

related to industry's ability to provide affordable energy resources from public lands across the West.

All BLM emc0246GB

916. At this time, it is very unclear how an analysis will be performed to determine priority habitat requirements and boundaries 

within federal management units. We request that BlM clarify how these boundaries will be drawn in accordance with state 

wildlife agencies and what criteria will be enforced to draw boundaries between priority, general, and associated habitat.

All BLM emc0246GB

917. Because the timing, distance, and density requirements within PPH areas are so extensive in the Report, operators need 

ample flexibility when operating outside of those areas. We ask the BLM to consider the heavy burden it asks operators to 

bear when complyins with the greater sage-grouse standards within PPH areas when applying timing, distance, and density 

restrictions for leks, nesting/early brood-rearing habitat, and areas of suitable habitat outside PPH areas.

All BLM emc0246GB

918. Samson recommends that BlM analyze an Adaptive Management (AM) alternative in this planning effort. AM allows project 

proponents to adjust approaches for GSG management based on new data acquired through monitoring. The AM approach 

also allows BlM the necessary flexibility to modify management policies and decisions based on what is actually happening on 

the ground.

All BLM emc0246GB

919. Further, the revised RMPs should allow the BLM to critically assess Information about habitat on a local or regional basis 

when it considers GSG stipulations on individual projects. Efforts of local working groups, including sitespecific research, 

must be identified and incorporated into the planning process when applicable.

All BLM emc0246GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-182 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

920. We are interested and concerned about the contractor who will be selected to perform the economic analysis. We request 

that the BLM ensure the contractor has a proven track record of providing balanced analysis of all the socia-economic 

Impacts related to sage grouse restrictions, valid existing lease rights and other multiple uses of public lands. In addition, we 

are concerned about the use of subjective, focus group or "willingness to pay" research by some socio-economic consultants 

to attempt to quantify the value of conservation by the general public. We do not believe these scenarios provide factual, 

socio-economic information to compare to actual socio-economlc data provided by stakeholders and local and state 

governments, such as tax revenues from all multiple users and employment figures based on BLM's EIS alternatives to be 

analyzed for these RMP amendments.

All BLM emc0246GB

921. Recognize the lack of science to base decisions on tall structures such as electric transmission and distribution facilities.In 

partnership with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah State University, and several APLIC-member utilities, APLIC 

has supported efforts coordinated by Utah Wildlife in Need (UWIN) to assess Sage-grouse and tall structures. These efforts 

include stakeholder workshops and a literature review to assess current knowledge and concerns regarding sage-grouse and 

tall structures, and the development of research protocols to be used when assessing potential impacts of tall structures on 

sage-grouse. Tall structures for the purpose of the UWIN project are electric transmission and distribution lines and 

associated infrastructure. A key concern learned in Phase I (literature review/stakeholder workshops) of the project is "the 

science upon which to base many tall structure decisions is lacking." These efforts meet goals identified by the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) in the 2006 Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation 

Strategy. APLIC encourages the BLM to reference and utilize these documents as it refines its sage-grouse strategy. These 

documents can be found at the Utah State University website, http://utahcbcp.org/htm/tall-structure-info.

All Both emc0275GB 

emc0111rm

922. Accept research as an acceptable form of mitigation for electric transmission projects. There are multiple major 

transmission projects under consideration that cross over greater sage-grouse habitat. APLIC strongly urges BLM to accept 

research, where feasible, as an acceptable component of a mitigation package for electric transmission projects which may 

impact sage-grouse habitat. This may be especially applicable for unknown, indirect impacts of transmission lines. Likewise, 

such research would help facilitate the development of "scientific and consistent siting criteria" and "Best Management 

Practices", which are also goals identified in the WAFWA 2006 strategy document.

All Both emc0275GB

923. Encourage BLM personnel to attend APLIC Avian Protection training workshops. APLIC with assistance from the FWS twice 

annually conducts workshops on avian power line interactions throughout the U.S. Short courses include presentations 

regarding: regulations and permits; electrical systems; causes and prevention of bird electrocutions and collisions; nest 

management and protection; minimizing avian impacts associated with new construction; and Avian Protection Plans. 

Course presented in the western U.S. include discussion of greater sage-grouse. BLM personnel involved in greater 

sagegrouse conservation and eagle protection are welcome to attend the training. Attendees from previous workshops have 

included electric utility personnel, federal and state agency representatives, environmental consultants and avian protection

equipment manufacturers/vendors. Information on upcoming training workshops is posted at www.aplic.org .

All Both emc0275GB

924. Comments on "A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures" (produced by the Sage-grouse National 

Technical Team, December 21, 2011). The following comments pertain to specific parts of the above-referenced 

document. Page 4, Introduction, first bullet: "Understand current scientific knowledge related to the greater sage-grouse." 

All Both emc0275GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-183

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

APLIC urges the BLM and National Technical Team to consider the literature review conducted by Utah Wildlife In Need 

(UWIN) entitled "Contemporary Knowledge and Research Needs Regarding the Potential Effects of Tall Structures on 

Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus and C. minimus)" when developing management strategies and considering 

conservation measures regarding above ground structures such as transmission and wind turbines in relation to sage-grouse. 

The current state of knowledge regarding this issue is greatly lacking as stated in the executive summary of the above 

referenced report as follows "We learned during the project that there were no peer-reviewed, experimental studied 

designed specifically to evaluate the landscape effects of tall structures on sage-grouse." Conservation measures and 

management strategies should reflect the current state of knowledge, be "science-based" (as stated in bullet 7 page 5 of the 

conservation measures document) and be developed in a way to foster/facilitate the acquisition of needed research data 

through appropriately designed studies. As stated above, APLIC recommends these studies, where feasible should, also be 

acknowledged as an acceptable form of mitigation for project proponents whose projects may impact sage-grouse habitat.

925. Comments on "A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures" (produced by the Sage-grouse National 

Technical Team, December 21, 2011). The following comments pertain to specific parts of the above-referenced 

document. Page 6, 3rd paragraph, "Human land use, including...power line infrastructure...have contributed both 

individually and cumulatively to lower numbers of sage-grouse across the range." There is no empirical research to support 

this claim. As identified above, the UWIN literature review concluded that there is a significant lack of valid science regarding

sage-grouse and power lines. APLIC requests that the Conservation Measures document include valid and appropriate 

scientific data to support its claims and recommendations. Where such data are not available, it should be noted as an area

where further research is needed.

All Both emc0275GB

926. Comments on "A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures" (produced by the Sage-grouse National 

Technical Team, December 21, 2011). The following comments pertain to specific parts of the above-referenced 

document. Page 8, footnote, "Professional judgment as derived from..." As stated previously, APLIC requests that the 

Conservation Measures document include valid and appropriate scientific data, rather than opinions, to support its claims 

and recommendations. Where such data is not available, it should be noted as an area where further research is needed.

All Both emc0275GB

927. Comments on "A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures" (produced by the Sage-grouse National 

Technical Team, December 21, 2011). The following comments pertain to specific parts of the above-referenced 

document. Page 28, "Monitoring of Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats" section. The concept of adaptive management is 

raised. APLIC encourages BLM to engage industry stakeholders in discussions if adaptive management is to be considered.

Adaptive management leads to regulatory uncertainty to industry, and can have substantial financial implications that would 

make projects or project funding unfeasible.

All Both emc0275GB

928. Comments on "A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures" (produced by the Sage-grouse National 

Technical Team, December 21, 2011). The following comments pertain to specific parts of the above-referenced 

document. Pages 28-29, "Monitoring of Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats" section. This section discusses the need for 

rigorous monitoring protocols to assess the impacts of conservation and management actions. We suggest that this be 

expanded to recognize the need for research where existing science is lacking (e.g., sage-grouse and tall structures). We 

recommend that the Conservation Measures document reference the UWIN document (UWIN Report. 2011. Protocol for 

All Both emc0275GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-184 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Investigating the Effects of Tall Structures on Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) within Designated or Proposed Energy

Corridors) as a guidance document, and recommend that industry funding of research that meets these criteria qualify as a 

form of mitigation for project impacts.

929. APLIC encourages the BLM to involve electric utility industry stakeholders, including APLIC, as it develops its sage-grouse 

strategy. Members of the electric utility industry can help identify industry-specific guidance and methods that may be 

included in a "mitigation toolbox" to addresses specific impacts associated with different industries. APLIC also encourages 

the BLM to work with electric utilities to identify areas where proposed or future electric utility infrastructure may be 

needed so that sage-grouse habitat and energy needs can be appropriately planned and sited. APLIC represents a positive 

history of the electric utility industry working with agencies to find solutions to avian electrocution and collision problems;

we feel that similar collaborative efforts between industry and agencies can be used to find solutions that will benefit 

sage-grouse and their habitat.

All Both emc0275GB

930. At the same time, EI Paso and its customers have an interest In helping to achieve the BLM multiple use policy to conserve 

sens itive species.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

931. EI Paso recognizes the importance of conserv ing sage-grouse and their habitat. However, we have concerns that the BLM 

is overlooking Congress' directives requiring multiple uses of public lands. The conservation measures as provided by the 

National Technical Team ("NTT") do not address BLM' s or the Forest Service's multiple-use mandates.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

932. The planning strategy object ive is to "develop new or revised reglflaf01Y mechanisms, Ihrough Resource Management Plan 

(RMP .~~ 10 conserve and res/ore the grealer sage-grouse and its habitat on BLM-adminislered lands 011 a range wide basis 

over /he long-Ierm." However, the measures described by the NT!' are not balanced and do not acknowledge the multipl 

e-use mission of the BLM. While the agencies must complete the analysis and resulting documents in a short timeframe, EI 

Paso requests that overly protect ive measures not be adopted in order simply to expedite the process. Rather, careful 

considerat ion of various peer-reviewed sc ientific data as well as close consultation with state and local workin g groups, 

industry, state wildlife agencies, and others fami liar with sage-grouse and sage-grou se mitigation should precede the 

development of any RMP revisions. In addition, El Paso would empha size the need for the BLM to carefully consider and 

adhere to their long-standing policy of multiple-use of the public lands.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

933. EI Paso would also recommend the inclusion of a broader stakeholder group for the development and evaluation of any 

proposed conservation measures. Significant work has already been done by numerous state and local working groups, indu 

stry and other interested stakeholders regarding sagegrouse habitat and di sturbances within these habitats. Inclu sion of 

these groups will result in the development of conservation meas ures that are both effective and practicable.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

934. As an interstate transporter of natural gas, EI Paso constructs and maintains numerous facilities 111 many states that cross 

land managed by multiple BLM Field Offices. The proposed conservation measures must, to the greatest extent poss ible, 

provide a consistent management approach across the range of the species and between BLM Field Offices. The NIT 

objectives identify the need to "Oversee the development of consis/ent regula/OIY mechanisms across the range of the 

greater sagegrouse ." EI Paso recently completed the Ruby Pipeline Project that crossed land managed by seven BLM Fie ld 

Offices in four states. Our experience was that the lack of consistency in Field Office policies across the Project had a 

significant impact on project permitting, construction schedule and costs. The conservation measures deve loped during the 

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-185

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

NEPA process should provide consistent definitions of lek buffer s ize, dates that identify when certain activities are allowed 

within identified habitats, and consistent levels of allowable impacts. We understand that s ite specific cons iderations may

affect these parameters, but BLM should strive to minimize inconsistency.

935. EI Paso would request that the BLM acknowledge and incorporate rece nt studies regarding the impact of oil and gas 

activities and predation on sage-grouse populations in the EIS's. The NTT should strive to incorporate all peer-reviewed and 

published scientific papers that provide data relevant to impacts to sage-grouse.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

936. The following comments address the NTT Report ("Report") on National Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures dated 

December 21, 20II . El Paso recognizes that as stated in the Report, the conservation measures described are not an 

endpoint, but instead are a starting point for the BLM to be used in the planning process. EI Paso's comments focus primarily 

on specific aspects relevant to energy infrastructure projects that currently are or may potentially occur with sage-grouse 

habitat. It is imperative that as conservation measures are further developed as a part of this process, that the BLM solicit 

participation from land owners, industry, ranching, mining, and other land users to insure that the measures developed both 

comply with other existing regulations and that the BLM's policy of multiple-use is adhered to.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

937. One of the initial goals of the conservation measu res is to "manage priorily sage-grouse habitat so that discrele 

anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3 percent of the sage-grouse habitat" and to allow no addition disturbances in 

these areas until enough area has been restored to maintain the area under this threshold. This goal may be unrealistic in 

many areas due to preexisting disturbances. Further, if this disturbance occurs in areas that are not under the jurisdiction of 

the BLM, the 3 percent threshold may never be reached since the BLM has no jurisdiction to manage such areas. This would 

essentially make these public lands unavailable for multiple-use as is mandated by BLM policy. In addition, the second bullet 

on page 7 of 74 states the objective to "manage or resourse priorily areas so thaI at least 70 percent of the land cover 

provides adequate sagebrush habitat over the long term." This too may be an unrealistic goal since some areas did not 

historically support this level of sagebrush habitat.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

938. On page 6 of 74, the New Paradigm, EI Paso feels that it is important that local governments be included in the development 

of policy and conservation measures. Local economies and governments will be directly affected by these measures and need 

to provide input regarding any new measures.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

939. On page 9 of 74, No. 3 Right·of·Way - Lands/Realty, the document addresses the need for offsite mitigation if disturbances 

exceed the 3 percent threshold. If mitigation is required to offset disturbance within sage·grouse habitat, the BLM needs 

develop a consistent policy across the sage·grouse range that identifies specific and defined mitigation ratios and the process 

used to identify suitable mitigation measures. This needs to include input from state and local working groups, state wildlife 

agencies, industry, ranchers, and other affected groups.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

940. Throughout the report, the conservation measures are applied to both priority sage-grouse habitat and general sage·grouse 

habitat. It has been assumed that these areas equate to those identified on maps provided on the website, however this 

information needs to be clearly identified in future documents. We would anticipated that these maps would change over 

time due to events that modify habitats, either positively or negatively, or as new information is received and new research 

is directed at sage·grouse. The BLM needs to identify a schedule for revis ions and provisions for how the modifications 

would be made. EI Paso would request that this be a public process that takes into account input from the state and local 

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-186 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

working groups, state wildlife agencies, industry, ranchers, mining and other affected stakeholders.

941. In addition, the conservation measures do not identify any provisions for adaptive management. It is critical that the BLM 

provide for changed circumstances including new regulations, additional research, or changes in population dynamics. A 

comprehensive discussion of how the conservation measures would be modified is important to the long-term success of 

the program. This discussion should also identify how conservation requirements will differ between PGH and PPH areas.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

942. The Informational Memorandum (IM) stipulates in several areas that the field offices have the discretion to defer making a 

final decision until the completion of the Land Use Permit process. EI Paso has concerns that implementation of this 

recommendation could be used to indefinitely delay decisions being made on new projects or maintenance projects that 

occur with priority habitats. There needs to be clear guidance on how long the decision making process can last so that 

companies have assurances that can be built into project schedules.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

943. The IM states that Special Recreation Permits may be "canceled as appropriate to avoid or minimize habitat aIterations or 

other physical disturbances to Greater Sage-Grouse ." EI Paso has concerns that if these permits can be canceled, that the 

policy may be further extended into other Special Use Permits that are required for project implementation. This needs to 

be clarified .

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

944. The above comments are a general overview of the concerns that EI Paso has with the conservation measures as provided. 

We recognize the complexity of addressing these concerns as they relate to the many users of the BLM administered lands. 

We would suggest th at as the BLM moves forward with the development of these measures the interests of state and local 

worki ng groups, ranchers, private landowners, industry, and other groups be included in their development. These groups 

have many years of experience in working in these areas and with sage-grouse, as does the BLM, and through a cooperative 

process we believe workable conservation measures can be developed that address disturbances to sage-grouse and their 

habitat.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

945. Throughout the West the sage-grouse plays a significant ro le in interstate pipel ine permitting. Addressing sage-grouse 

related issues can be a significant factor in the timely and cost-effective permitting and implementation of natural gas projects. 

Delay and inconsistency resulting from permitting requirements for sage-grouse can be costly to pipeline companies like EI 

Paso and to their customers. As stated previously, EI Paso recognizes the enormity of the scope of this project and the short 

duration of time in which the BLM and Forest Service have to complete this task. EI Paso would request that the BLM and 

Forest Service develop a consistent management policy across the range of the sage-grouse and identify conservation 

measures that will allow much needed energy projects to move forward in a manner that is consistent with sage-grouse 

protections.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113RM

946. NRCS staff attend every sage grouse local work group in Utah, and regularly interacts with local partners, including BLM 

staff.

All BLM emc0300GB

947. The Sage Grouse Initiative is an excellent example of how NRCS is orchestrating a paradigm shift in recovery for at-risk 

species. Instead of regulatory burdens, SGI takes a voluntary approach that benefits agriculture and sage grouse - along with 

a suite of other wildlife species too, from pronghorn to mule deer

All Both emc0300GB

948. I therefore urge you to reconsider both the proffered justification for these new regulations, and the form of the proposed All Both emc0301GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-187

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

regulations. Extrapolation of trend lines beyond the data limits is a diagnostic indicator ofjunk science. The apparent 

dependence of the BLM on using such extrapolations in determining that new regulations are needed is therefore deeply 

concerning on a scientific level. With respect to the proposed regulations, a strong case can be made that there precisely 

counterproductive to the proposed goal of stabilizing or increasing sage grouse population number:

949. The BLM has a responsibility to maintain multiple use of the lands under its control using the best and highest scientific 

standards. An unpleasant but necessary component ofthis responsibility is to stand up, when necessary, against voices 

motivated by emotion rather than science. The debacle over the so-called 'red wolf (a true wolf-coyote hybrid that was 

nonetheless for a time mistakenly identified as an endangered species) well demonstrates the difficulties that arise when data 

are misused. It is your responsibility to ensure that similar misuse does not occur in the case at hand.

All BLM emc0301GB

950. The BLM has a responsibility to maintain multiple use of the lands under its control using the best and highest scientific 

standards. An unpleasant but necessary component ofthis responsibility is to stand up, when necessary, against voices 

motivated by emotion rather than science. The debacle over the so-called 'red wolf (a true wolf-coyote hybrid that was 

nonetheless for a time mistakenly identified as an endangered species) well demonstrates the difficulties that arise when data 

are misused. It is your responsibility to ensure that similar misuse does not occur in the case at hand.

All BLM emc0301GB

951. App C. at 4. It further recognizes the importance in conserving special status species, and the role of BLM in ensuring such 

conservation: Given the legal mandate to conserve threatened or endangered species and BLM’s policy to conserve all 

special status species, land use planning strategies, desired outcomes, and decisions should result in a reasonable 

conservation strategy for these species. Land use plan decisions should be clear and sufficiently detailed to enhance habitat 

or prevent avoidable loss of habitat pending the development and implementation of implementation-level plans. This may 

include identifying stipulations or criteria that would be applied to implementation actions. Land use plan decisions should be 

consistent with BLM’s mandate to recover listed species and should be consistent with objectives and recommended actions 

in approved recovery plans, conservation agreements and strategies, MOUs, and applicable biological opinions for 

threatened and endangered species. Id. This section highlights the requirement of the agency to follow relevant policy 

regarding special status species and the agency’s sage grouse conservation strategy. Additionally, consistency is a notable 

requirement here, and BLM should thus ensure consistency across landscapes throughout this process to protect sage 

grouse populations and habitat.

All Both emc0276GB

952. ISSUES TO BE ANALYZED IN THE EIS There are numerous threats associated with negative impacts to sage-grouse and 

sage-grouse habitat on public lands, and the combination of these threats has resulted in drastic declines in the number of 

sage-grouse remaining in the West. The recent report created by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team in December 

2011 noted that the BLM is to specifically address threats identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service in their 2010 listing 

decision.7 We agree with this approach and identify other threats that we feel must be discussed and analyzed in the NEPA

process. This is not meant to be an exclusive list, and thus we urge the agencies to remain open to the potential that other 

threats not listed below exist. As these comments focus particularly on the Great Basin Region of the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, this section will entail a discussion of all threats we have identified within this part of the ecosystem, including 

those only relevant in particular or specified locations.

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-188 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

953. Studies have found that mitigation measures are generally not effective to offset these negative effects. Some negative effects 

of habitat disturbance can be offset by successful reclamation, but there is no evidence that populations will rebound to their 

previous size, and reestablishment may take 20 to 30 years. Additionally, studies show that in some reclaimed areas, 

sage-grouse have not returned. To complicate matters more, there is a wealth of research suggesting that restoration of 

sage-grouse habitat may be difficult or impossible to achieve. And while BLM has a No Surface Occupancy buffer stipulation, 

studies have concluded that this stipulation is ineffective to protect sage-grouse. This is especially true because the BLM has 

too often granted exceptions and waivers to wildlife stipulations. Between 2006 and 2007, for example, 115 exceptions were 

granted, 72 of which were in the Great Divide planning area in Wyoming, supporting one of the densest population 

concentrations for sage-grouse.

All Both emc0276GB

954. First of all, I believe overgrazing is not a function of numbers, but of time. The more time spent by any number of cattle (large 

or small) on a particular area the more degraded it may become. Speaking from our own experience on our ranch the 

solution is to graze an area for a short amount of time and then move on. In this way the cattle more closely resemble the 

migration of the buffalo, working the ground with their hooves and removing old growth. We started a rotation method of 

grazing our pastures in 1992, which was an extremely dry year for us with virtually no spring moisture. We feared we would 

not have nearly enough summer forage for our cattle. We took inventory of our pasture by carefully studying what was there 

and determined we could probably make it through the year by dividing the pasture to take advantage of all available forage. 

As we could not afford to suddenly go out and cross fence all our pastures we purchased electric poly wire and small posts 

to go with it. Every time we moved the cattle we moved the fence with them. We did not spend more than about two weeks 

on any one area. Water was a problem as most of the reservoirs were dry and we hauled water to wherever the cattle were. 

Not only did we make it through the summer with enough forage but, to our amazement, we left more forage at the end of 

the summer than we normally did on the good years with the conventional method of grazing where you dump the cattle out 

in a pasture in the spring and gather them in the fall. The reason for this is when rains did come the cattle could not go back 

and graze the small shoots coming up because they were confined to another area. Come fall this regrowth left much more 

standing forage going into the winter. The next spring we discovered those pastures with winter cover on them grew and

recovered much faster than those without cover. Once seeing the advantage to a rotation method of grazing we continued 

the practice, gradually adding permanent cross fencing

All Both rmc0003RM

955. Please consider the importance of the public-private partnerships that have been so successful. All Both rmc0007RM

956. Keeping ranches economically viable is crucial to the continued success of the Sage Grouse. All Both rmc0007RM

957. Because these policies are likely to be carried over into the EIS process, we believe it is appropriate to articulate our 

concerns as part of our scoping comments. However, our comments apply equally to projects that are currently under 

NEPA review and thus may be impacted by these policies in advance of the EIS process.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

958. Thus, affected entities should be provided opportunities to confirm assumptions regarding the value of particular habitat 

areas. And in areas of confirmed priority habitat, BLM should not simply disallow development. Instead, the agencies should 

develop, with the regulated community, strong but flexible conservation measures that include opportunities for pragmatic 

mitigation.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-189

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

959. On March 9, 2012, the BLM and the Forest Service released the Nevada preliminary habitat maps just two weeks before the 

close of comments on the EIS scoping process.9 Two weeks is insufficient time to fully evaluate the ramifications of the 

habitat maps;

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

960. It is difficult to determine the precise basis for which areas were classified as Preliminary Priority Habitat or Preliminary

General Habitat. The objective criteria for such designations, as well as any subjective components considered, should be 

provided to the public. Furthermore, we note that the NDOW maps are only a "starting point" and the boundaries "are 

expected to change." The maps also were developed on a landscape-scale and were not intended to identify project-level 

habitat boundaries. Thus, the NDOW maps provide no certainty regarding the geographic scope of the proposed EISs and 

make it difficult, if not impossible, to fully assess the potential applicability of conservation measures and to provide complete 

comments on their effects.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

961. In addition to the data underlying the habitat maps, the agencies should provide the basis for the conservation measures in 

BLM's Technical Report and interim management policies. NEPA requires full disclosure and opportunity for public 

participation in governmental decisions affecting environmental quality. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 

490 U.S. 332,349-50 (1989) (NEPA "guarantees that the relevant information will be made available to the larger audience 

that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision"); 40 C.P.R. § 1500.1(b), 

(c). To that end, in preparing an EIS, agencies must "insure the professional . .. and scientific integrity, of the discussions and 

analyses in environmental impact statements." 40 C.F.R. § 1500.24. They must identify the methodologies used, and must 

explicitly refer to the scientific and other source information relied on in the EIS. [d. The information "must be of a high 

quality," and must allow for "accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny." /d. § 1500.1(b). The 

agencies must also discuss responsible opposing views. [d. § 1502.9(b).

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

962. NEPA procedures must ensure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens "before decisions 

are made and before actions are taken." 40 C.P.R. § 1500.1 (b); see also etr.for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 349 

F.3d 1157, 1167 (9th Cir. 2003) (NEPA disclosure requirement "obligates the agency to make available to the public high 

quality information, including accurate scientific analysis, [and] expert agency comments .. . before decisions are made and 

actions are taken"). Unfortunately, the materials, data, studies, records of personal communication, and other materials 

relied on in the BLM's Technical Report and interim management policies were not available for public review at the time of 

the scoping notice. The public, including Barrick, was therefore not afforded an opportunity to consider the effects of those

policies and to prepare comments accordingly. Further, BLM stated that the conservation measures and policies in those 

documents will be incorporated into the EIS alternatives.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

963. Prior to concluding the scoping analysis, the agencies should provide, and allow public comment on, the scientific information 

and analysis for the BLM's Technical Report and Instruction Memoranda, including: • Scientific basis: The scientific basis for 

the Technical Report and interim management policies should be provided. For example, the agencies should identify the 

methodologies used and scientific literature considered. • Access to materials considered: Access to the materials, data, 

studies, records of personal communication, and other materials considered in developing the Technical Report and interim

management policies should be provided. • Field assessment of map findings: The agencies should identify whether affected 

parties will be given an opportunity to field-check the Priority and General Habitat maps. If so, the agencies should explain 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-190 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

when the parties will have that opportunity. For example, after the maps are complete, will a party be able to field-check the 

maps to determine whether identified habitat actually exists as depicted? And if so, will the party be able to do so after the 

EISs have been finalized, for instance, when the agencies are tasked with making an activity-level decision within a mapped 

Habitat area? What would be the process to submit evidence refuting the agency's map finding and what would be the 

burden of proof?

964. • Habitat fragmentation: The definition of habitat fragmentation needs to be clearly defined to ensure that treatments that 

remove sagebrush in an effort to maintain the integrity of the ecological site with the eventual reestablishment of sagebrush

on the site are not considered actions that fragment the habitat. The various phases of the ecological site plant community 

are not fragments, but parts of the overall landscape-scale habitat for sage-grouse. • Unfragmented habitats: The meaning of 

unfragmented habitats should be clearly defined. For example, if a wildfire breaks a large area of intact habitat into two large 

areas, and the burned area converts to cheatgrass or other non-native annual species, then this burned area may be 

considered fragmented. However, if the area that burned realizes the establishment of native perennial grasses and forbs, 

then this is the first phase of the rehabilitation of the site back to sagebrush-grassland and the area may not be considered as 

being fragmented-the ecological site is still intact and will support sage-grouse habitat. Areas that have been burned or 

otherwise converted to non-native ranges may be considered for rehabilitation with the goal of re-establishing native 

perennial grasses and forbs, and eventually, big sagebrush.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

965. • Preliminary priority and general habitat (PPH and PGH): The meaning of priority and general habitat, whether preliminary 

or final, should be defined. The habitat designations have been developed primarily as office exercises and should not be used 

at a project scale level. The baseline data collection for each project should include an on-the-ground evaluation of these 

habitat categories, which should be used to refine the mapping of these designations.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

966. • Relation to Nevada Department of Wildlife habitat categories: The agencies should explain how the definitions of PPH and 

PGH in the Technical Report and Instruction Memoranda compare or contrast to the Nevada Department of Wildlife 

(NDOW) habitat categories used to delineate preliminary priority and general habitat in Nevada (Preliminary Priority 

Habitat includes essential/irreplaceable and important habitats, and General Habitat includes habitat of moderate 

importance). Which set of definitions will guide final habitat designations in Nevada and elsewhere?

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

967. Three percent anthropogenic disturbance restriction: Please provide the scientific basis for the 3% figure. What is the basis

for establishing a numerical threshold? How was the 3% figure identified? Were any other figures considered, and if so, why 

were they rejected? How is the boundary delineated? What would be considered acceptable mitigation to avoid the 

threshold? For example, if a burned area was reseeded with perennial grasses and shrubs, do the shrubs have to be 

established and 3 feet tall to be considered successful reclamation? If so, then this could take several years.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

968. • Seventy percent land cover for priority habitat: Please explain the recommendation to "manage or restore priority areas so 

that at least 70% of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage-grouse needs." This recommendation 

does not appear to take into account ecological sites that occur within these large areas that do not have the capacity to 

provide the cover requirements of sage-grouse. What is the scientific basis for the 70% figure? What is the basis for 

establishing any numerical threshold? How was the 70% figure identified? Were any other figures considered, and if so, why 

were they rejected?

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-191

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

969. • Mitigation: Absolute disturbance or land cover requirements (for example 3% anthropogenic activities or 70% land cover) 

eliminate the role and potential of on- and off-site mitigation to improve the area. For example, a project may be authorized 

that disturbs more than 3% of a given area. If the project includes mitigation of what is otherwise poor habitat within the area 

or off-site, there may be a net habitat benefit that would not otherwise occur without the development-mitigation 

relationship. How will the agencies provide for appropriate mitigation?

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

970. The management plan revisions must comply with multiple use and sustained yield requirements Barrick's experience is 

that productive uses can co-exist with, and benefit, sagegrouse when coupled with appropriate conservation measures. 

Noxious weeds, wildfires, and pinyon-juniper encroachment have degraded vast areas of potential sage-grouse habitat. 

During mine reclamation, we routinely restore such low-value habitats into prime potential sage-grouse habitat. Our 

ranches also provide off-site restoration opportunities that possibly would not be available without their connection to 

mining operations. We believe the best way to provide for protection of the sage-grouse, while simultaneously allowing 

continued economic development, is for BLM to develop conservation measures in cooperation with the regulated 

community that include a strong but pragmatic mitigation program. Therefore, our comments request that the EISs 

recognize multiple use principles and feasible alternatives that include mitigation opportunities that will promote sage-grouse 

conservation.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

971. The management plan revisions must comply with multiple use and sustained yield requirements The agencies are required 

to manage for "multiple uses." However, the BLM Technical Team's conservation measures prioritize sage-grouse 

management to the exclusion of other uses. For example, as noted above, one measure would prohibit any disturbances 

affecting more than 3% of priority sage-grouse habitat. 17 That restriction seemingly would preclude any roads, transmission 

lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells, pipelines, landfills, homes, mines, or other uses from 

affecting more than 3% of priority habitat. See id. BLM also proposes to withdraw priority habitat from mineral entry, 

threatening existing and future mining claims. 18 The scoping analysis should recognize that the proposed revisions must 

comply with the agencies' multiple use mandates.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

972. The management plan revisions must comply with multiple use and sustained yield requirements In the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act, Congress declared that BLM's public lands were to be managed "on the basis of multiple use." 43 

U.S.C. § 1701 (a)(7); see also id. § 1732(a) (directing the BLM to manage public lands under the principles of multiple use). 

Multiple use management requires "a combination of balanced and diverse resources uses," including "recreation, range, 

timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values." Id. § 1702©. BLM must 

manage for multiple uses, including mineral extraction and grazing. Wildlife conservation may never be the BLM's exclusive 

management consideration.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

973. The management plan revisions must comply with multiple use and sustained yield requirements BLM must also recognize 

"the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands." Id. § 1701(a)(12). And 

BLM must manage the public lands for a "sustained yield," requiring "the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a 

high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple 

use." [d. § 1702(h). Mineral extraction, grazing, and other productive uses must be considered on equal footing with 

sage-grouse management, and not merely as an afterthought. The National Forest Management Act and the Multiple-Use 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-192 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Sustained-Yield Act require the Forest Service to similarly manage for mUltiple uses and sustained yield. Forest Service 

management plans must provide for "multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained therefrom in 

accordance with the [Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act], and, in particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, 

timber, watershed, wildlife and fish and wilderness." 16 U.S.C. § 1604€. The Forest Service must recognize "the policy of the

Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes." Id. § 528. Accordingly, both the Forest Service and BLM must recognize multiple 

uses during the revision process.

974. The management plan revisions must comply with multiple use and sustained yield requirements The proposed land use 

and resource management plan revisions require sagegrouse conservation measures, but they do not expressly recognize 

the agencies' multiple use and sustained yield obligations. They also do not recognize the value of minerals, grazing, timber, 

and other productive uses. The scoping analysis should clarify that all multiple use and sustained yield objectives, including 

provisions for productive uses, should be considered during the revision process. See Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 

542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004) (describing multiple use management as striking a balance among the many competing uses to which 

land can be put); Rocky Mtn. Oil and Gas Ass'n v. Watt, 696 F.2d 734,738 (lOth Cir. 1982) (the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act requires BLM to recognize competing values).

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

975. i. Purpose and need statement should include multiple use Multiple use and sustained yield principles should be set out in 

the "purpose and need" section of the environmental impact statement. Those principles were not described in the scopin~ 

notice and seemingly were not emphasized in BLM's conservation measures. 9 Environmental impact statements must 

specify "the underlying purpose and need" of the agency action being considered. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13. The purpose and 

need statement is critical because it constrains the range of "reasonable alternatives" to be examined. 42 U.S.C. § 

4332(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14; see also Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 868 (9th Cir. 2004). 

"Alternatives that do not accomplish the purpose of an action are not reasonable and need not be studied in detail by the 

agency." Citizens Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. U.S. Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1031 (lOth Cir. 2(02). Agencies are given 

"considerable discretion" to define the purpose and need. Nat'l Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 606 

F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). However, "an agency cannot define its objectives in unreasonably narrow 

terms" so that only one or a limited number of alternatives will meet the purpose and need. Id. (citation omitted). 

Otherwise, the impact statement "would become a foreordained formality." Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 

F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991); see also City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 

1997). Here, multiple use and sustained yield requirements should be spelled out in the purpose and need statement to

ensure they are considered. See Citizens Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 196 (in defining the purpose of an EIS, "an agency 

should always consider the views of Congress, expressed, to the extent that the agency can determine them, in the agency's 

statutory authorization to act, as well as in other congressional directives"). The National Technical Team's recommended 

conservation measures would allow uses other than sage-grouse management on only 3% of priority habitat and would 

withdraw priority habitat entirely from mineral entry.20 Under Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044, those conservation 

measures "must be considered and incorporated into at least one alternative in the land use planning process." Given BLM's 

and the Forest Service's multiple use mandates for land use planning, which must be incorporated in the purpose and need 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-193

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

for these management plan revisions, alternatives that manage solely for sage-grouse conservation to the exclusion of all 

other uses cannot meet the purpose and need, and need not be considered in detail.

976. ii. Range of alternatives should not be more restrictive than an Endangered Species Act ("ESA") Listing The agencies' 

objective in launching the RMP revision process is to "conserve sage-grouse and its habitat and potentially avoid an ESA 

listing. ,,21 While the prospect of a sage-grouse listing and its regulatory consequences may be daunting, the restrictive 

measures recommended by the National Technical Team may be even more so. Indeed, the ESA permits the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to at least consider each proposed action individually, taking into consideration the site-specific 

circumstances, species and habitat conditions, potential effects to the species, and potential mitigating actions. While "take" 

of listed species is prohibited under the ESA, there are opportunities for take permits. By contrast, some National Technical

Team recommendations would put millions of acres of public lands off limits from mineral entry or arbitrarily cap 

disturbance regardless of sitespecific species occurrence and habitat conditions, or mitigation opportunities that might be 

offered by the project proponent. In deciding what conservation measures should be imposed to avoid a listing, the agencies 

must consider whether the measures proposed may cost more than the ESA listing it is attempting to avoid. The irony of 

the agencies' purpose to avoid a listing and the BLM National Technical Team's recommended conservation measures is 

highlighted by the Technical Team's proposal to withdraw from mineral entry priority sage-grouse habitat areas.22 The 

Technical Team also recommends a 3% surface disturbance cap in priority habitat.23 Such blanket prohibitions that admit no 

exceptions based on habitat conditions and quality, species occurrence, or mitigation that might be offered by the project 

applicant are at once inflexible and draconian, evidencing a singularity of purpose that directly contradicts the agencies' 

multiple-use mandates. By contrast, an ESA listing does not automatically put off limits all projects that might adversely 

affect the species or its critical habitat within its range. In fact, the ESA specifically provides processes to obtain "take" 

authorization for both private projects and those with a federal nexus. For private projects that might result in "take"-defined 

broadly to include any activity that would or would attempt to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,

or collect a species, 50 C.F.R. § 17.3-an applicant can obtain an Incidental Take Permit under ESA Section 10 after preparing 

an approved Habitat Conservation Plan. 16 U.S.c. § 1539(a)(l)(B); 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(l)(iii). A Habitat Conservation Plan 

specifies the actions that will be taken by the project applicant to minimize and mitigate effects to the listed species. Measures 

can be as varied as avoiding Impacts by relocating project facilities, minimizing impacts through timing restrictions and buffer 

zones, rectifying impacts by restoration and re-vegetation, and compensating for impacts by habitat restoration or 

protection at an offsite location.24 The Fish and Wildlife Service can issue an incidental take permit if after considering the 

effects and committed mitigation measures, the taking will not appreciably reduce the likely survival or recovery ofthe 

species as a whole. 50 CF.R. § 17.22(b)(2). Similarly, when an agency such as BLM permits an activity that is likely to 

adversely affect a listed species, it must initiate Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that the 

proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 50 C.F.R. § 402. 14(a). The Service issues a 

Biological Opinion to determine whether jeopardy will occur. /d. § 402.14(g). The Service may take into consideration any 

conservation measures or other agreements between the action agency and the project proponent, including commitments 

to mitigate and minimize impacts. See Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, in 

both the Section 10 and Section 7 context, there is no absolute prohibition on activities that might "take" species. Rather, 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-194 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

project approval is based on whether, after applying the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, the action will 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival or recovery of the species, or result in jeopardy, respectively. The ESA 

permitting processes encourage cooperation between the Service and the applicant to find solutions that both allow the 

applicant's project to move forward while conserving the species. The mineral industry is familiar with ESA processes and 

has worked successfully with the Fish and Wildlife Service over several decades to ensure mining operations do not place 

listed species such as the Lahontan cutthroat trout in jeopardy. Whatever conservation measures the agencies ultimately 

implement in its various RMPs, they should encourage similar collaboration for species conservation and avoid 

industrystifling blanket prohibitions that fail to take into consideration individual project proposals and site-specific 

circumstances. Barrick encourages the agencies to consider, and incorporate in their management plan revisions, 

alternatives that provide flexibility to the agencies to work with industry toward effective conservation while permitting 

multiple uses of the public lands.

977. iii. Alternatives should be technically and economically feasible The range of alternatives must be technically or 

economically feasible. NEPA requires the agencies to "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to 

recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources." 42 U.S.c. § 4332(2)(E). The agencies should emphasize what is "reasonable" and include only alternatives that are 

"practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint." BLM NEPA Handbook at 50; see also N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. 

v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2006) (agency need not discuss alternatives "which are infeasible, ineffective, or 

inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area"); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a). In determining what 

is "technically or economically" feasible, the agencies should consider whether implementation is likely given past and current 

practice. BLM NEP A Handbook at 52. As an initial matter, the agencies cannot implement an alternative that manages 

solely for sage-grouse conservation, as it would violate FLPMA, NMFA, and MUSYA statutory mandates to manage the public 

lands for multiple uses. Further, as a practical matter, rigid surface occupancy restrictions possibly would not be technically 

or economically feasible. The Technical Team's 3% priority habitat disturbance measure does not address habitat recovery 

timelines. Restoration of degraded habitats below the threshold could take several years to a decade or more. This would be 

an unacceptable delay to new mining projects and expansions at existing mines. Even with the extremely long permitting 

times to get a plan of operations deemed complete, baseline data collection, and NEPA analysis, which is a 4 to 6 year 

process, there could be a delay if the restoration is not approved as sufficient or successful. These types of unknown delays 

in permitting are not technically or economically feasible for large-scale mining operations.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

978. iv. Design features and mitigation measures BLM and the Forest Service should consider alternatives that incorporate 

design features and mitigation measures other than the measures in the Technical Report to reduce or avoid impacts to 

biological, physical, or socioeconomic resources. See BLM NEPA Handbook at 61; 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20 (NEPA regulation 

defining mitigation). Possible design features and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to: • Alternatives that 

recognize the efforts of local, regional, and statewide conservation initiatives.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

979. iv. Design features and mitigation measures BLM and the Forest Service should consider alternatives that incorporate 

design features and mitigation measures other than the measures in the Technical Report to reduce or avoid impacts to 

biological, physical, or socioeconomic resources. See BLM NEPA Handbook at 61; 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20 (NEPA regulation 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-195

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

defining mitigation). Possible design features and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to: • Alternatives that 

provide for compensatory on-site or off-site mitigation to offset activities in sage-grouse habitat that might otherwise be 

closed under disturbance caps.

980. The BLM's interim management policies and procedures were impermissible rulemaking and should not be considered 

during the revision process BLM's adoption of the interim management policies and procedures in Instruction Memoranda 

No. 2012-043 constituted an impermissible rulemaking. It is a wellestablished doctrine of administrative law that an agency 

must comply with the procedures in the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") if it intends to formulate, amend, or repeal 

a rule. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(4),553. Under the APA, rules include "the whole or part of an agency statement of general or 

particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the 

organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency." [d. § 551(4); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 

1021 n.II (D.C. Cir. 2000). Among the procedures that an agency must follow to properly promulgate a substantive rule are: 

(1) notifying the public through publication in the Federal Register that an agency is proposing to issue a rule; (2) providing 

the public an opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed rule; and (3) publishing the rule in the Federal 

Register at least 30 days prior to its effective date. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(d). Moreover, the procedural requirements of the 

APA apply not only to those rules which an agency denominates as such, but also to "an agency's other pronouncements 

[which] can, as a practical matter, have a binding effect." Appalachian Power, 208 F.3d at 1021. In determining whether an 

agency guidance document, memorandum, policy statement, or other such document constitutes a binding, legislative rule, 

courts have recognized that: If an agency acts as if a document issued at headquarters is controlling in the field, if it treats 

the document in the same manner as it treats a legislative rule, if it bases enforcement actions on the policies or 

interpretations formulated in the document, if it leads private parties or State permitting authorities to believe that it will 

declare permits invalid unless they comply with the terms of the documents, then the agency's document is for all practical 

purposes 'binding.' [d. (quoting Robert A. Anthony, Interpretive Rules, Policy Statements, Guidances, Manuals, and the 

Like-Should Federal Agencies Use Them to Bind the Public?, 41 Duke LJ. 1311, 1328-29 (1992»; see also Defenders of 

Wildlife v. EPA, 415 F.3d 1121, 1127 (10th Cir. 2005) (agency may not "escape the notice and comment requirements ... by 

labeling a major substantive legal addition to a rule a mere interpretation") (internal citations omitted); Nat 'I Mining Ass'n v. 

Jackson, 768 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2011) ("despite the EPA's assertions that the Guidance Memorandum is only an interim 

document, the Guidance Memorandum is being treated and applied in practice as if it were final"). Regardless of what name 

an agency gives to a document, if it has the practical effect of binding the public to a particular standard or course of conduct, 

the agency's decision constitutes a legislative rule and such rule is valid only if it is the product of the rulemaking procedures 

of the APA. Appalachian Power, 208 F.3d at 1021; General Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377, 383 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Here, the 

BLM field offices must adhere to the interim conservation policies and procedures in Instruction Memorandum No. 

2012-043. The memorandum states that it is intended to "ensure" the interim conservation policies and procedures are 

implemented by the field offices in authorizing and carrying out activities on public land. Those measures are more than 

"guidance" or "considerations," but rather, they may have substantive impacts on projects. For example, the travel 

management prohibition against route category changes (Le., road, primitive road, or trail) possibly would apply to all 

improvements, including those currently before the agencies. For all practical purposes, the interim measures are "binding" 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-196 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

on BLM. See General Elec. Co., 290 F.3d at 383 (citing McLouth Steel Prods. Corp. v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1317, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 

1988» (stating that an agency pronouncement will be considered binding if it "is applied by the agency in a way that indicates 

it is binding"). Because BLM's interim conservation policies and procedures were an impermissible rulemaking, those 

measures should not be considered during the revision process.

981. B. BLM violated NEPA by not taking a hard look at the environmental consequences of its interim management guidelines 

before taking action In its haste to issue the interim management guidelines, BLM short-circuited the required NEPA 

review process. Specifically, BLM violated NEPA by failing to consider the environmental consequences of the interim 

measures and by failing to enable meaningful and informed public involvement. This disregard for NEPA's procedural 

requirements undermines the guidelines and renders them arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

982. B. BLM violated NEPA by not taking a hard look at the environmental consequences of its interim management guidelines 

before taking action i. BLM was required to prepare an environmental impact statement before issuing the interim policies 

based on the potential significant effects on the human environment NEP A requires an agency to take a "hard look" at the 

environmental consequences of its projects before decisions are made and before action is taken. 42 U.S.c. § 4332(C); 40 

C.F.R. § 1500.1; Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. CounciL, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989). To that end, an agency must prepare an 

environmental impact statement for all "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 

42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An agency may first prepare an environmental assessment to determine whether the effects are 

significant. If the EA establishes that the action may have significant environmental impacts, the agency must prepare an EIS. 

If the agency makes a finding that the action will have no significant impact, no EIS is required. See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4. If 

"substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect" are raised, "an EIS must be prepared." Cal. Wilderness 

Coal. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 631 F.3d 1072, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011). The courts have stated that "[t]his is a low standard." 

KLamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. Boody, 468 F.3d (9th Cir. 2006). BLM's interim guidelines authorized significant 

changes to the human environment without any NEPA analysis. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.14 ("human environment" includes "the 

natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment"). BLM will impose new restrictions 

and requirements on activities that will change the natural and physical environment by "enhancing" and "restoring" 

sage-grouse habitat. For example, future leasable mineral developments in areas where sage-grouse populations have 

diminished will be required to promote "restoration" of habitat when development activities cease. BLM also will put a high 

priority on "closing and reclaiming" unauthorized motor vehicle routes. These and other directives in the guidelines will have 

the effect of changing the physical environment to suit the sage-grouse. Even if BLM believes that the conservation policies 

may only have a significant beneficial effect on the environment, an EIS can still be required. Humane Soc'y v. Locke, 626 F.3d 

1040, 1056 n.9 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring an EIS for significant beneficial effects "is consistent with the weight of circuit 

authority and has the virtue of reflecting the plain language of the statute"); Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 

1094, 11 15 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that implementation of Roadless Rule that would close forests to human intervention 

"does alter the environmental status quo" and requires NEPA review); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(1 ) ("A significant effect may 

exist even if the agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial."). Among other things, Barrick believes that BLM 

likely has not adequately considered social and economic values nor the reclamation undertakings by Barrick and others that 

have improved the quality of sage grouse habitat in Northern Nevada, as described above.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-197

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

983. B. BLM violated NEPA by not taking a hard look at the environmental consequences of its interim management guidelines 

before taking action ii. The effects of the BLM's sage-grouse policies are highly controversial and highly uncertain BLM also 

should have prepared an EIS before adopting sage-grouse conservation policies because of the high level of scientific 

uncertainty and controversy regarding the effects of its action. See 40 C.F.R. § 1S08.27(b)(4)-(S). In determining whether an 

action significantly affects "the quality of the human environment," an agency must consider both "context" and "intensity." . 

§ lS08.27. One of the "intensity" factors under the regulations states that preparation of an EIS may be required where "the 

effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial." [d. § 1S08.27(b)(4). The term 

"controversy" does not refer to whether the action is unpopUlar; rather, it means a substantial dispute about the size, 

extent, nature or effect of the federal action. Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Locke, 626 F.3d 1040, lOS7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation 

omitted). Another "intensity" factor directs the agency to prepare an EIS where "effects on the human environment are 

highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks." 40 C.F.R. § 1S08.27(b)(S). BLM's decision to prepare EISs for the 

management plan revisions casts serious doubt on the reasonableness of the agency's decision to bypass NEPA when it 

issued conservation policies in the interim. BLM conducted over 40 scoping meetings throughout the western states to 

gather information and comments on the nature and scope of incorporating sage-grouse conservation measures into the 

agency's management scheme. The agency's conduct recognizes that sage-grouse conservation is controversial and 

uncertain. The same rationale applies to the interim conservation policies, but the agency has provided no reasoned 

explanation for its earlier decision to forego NEP A. See Nat'/ Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Babbitt, 241 F.3d 722, 736 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (the burden is on the agency to come forward with a well-reasoned explanation demonstrating why 

controvertible evidence does not suffice to create a public controversy based on potential environmental consequences) 

(citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 27S7 (2010).

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

984. B. BLM violated NEPA by not taking a hard look at the environmental consequences of its interim management guidelines 

before taking action iii. The BLM failed to provide an opportunity for public review and comment on the interim policies 

The interim management guidelines were deficient for NEPA's purposes of facilitating informed agency decisionmaking and 

public comment. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349-S0 (1989) (defining one ofNEPA's 

goals as "ensur[ing] that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will carefully consider, detailed 

information concerning significant environmental impacts"). The guidelines were issued without any public notice or 

comment opportunity. The scoping meetings for the management plan revision EISs occurred after the interim guidelines 

came out. The public was not allowed to offer scientific evidence, alternatives, or input of any kind. By imposing these new 

restrictions and policies without any public scrutiny of any kind, BLM violated NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § lSOO.l (b) ("Accurate 

scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA."). The agency's 

current NEPA analysis does not remedy this error. NEPA requires the agency take a "hard look" at environmental 

consequences before it acts. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1; Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 

374 (1989). Under CEQ regulations, actions may be authorized during the pendency of the preparation of an EIS only if the 

interim action will not have any significant environmental impacts on the human environment or limit the range of 

alternatives. 40 c.F.R. § 1506.1. These regulations generally apply only where the agencies have prepared, and allowed for 

comment participation in, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. See Intertribal Bison Coop. v. 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-198 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Babbitt, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (D. Mont. 1998) (upholding an interim bison management plan prepared by the National Park 

Service while the Service was developing a long-term bison management plan and associated EIS where the Service had 

prepared an EA and FONSI for the interim plan); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, et al., 169 IBLA 146 (2006) (The Interior Board of Land

Appeals upheld interim exploratory drilling plans in the Atlantic Rim area during the pendency of a area-wide EIS where BLM 

had prepared an EA and FONSI). BLM prepared neither an EIS nor an EA when it issued its interim policies despite the 

adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, BLM failed to comply with NEPA and the interim policies should not be 

considered during the management plan EIS process.

985. c. BLM was required to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis By issuing the interim management guidelines without 

notice and comment, BLM is avoiding its obligation to examine the effect of its rules on the small businesses and governments 

that are crucial to the local economy.34 The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency, concurrent with proposing a new 

rule, to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses and 

discussing "significant alternatives" that accomplish the regulatory objectives while "minimiz[ing] any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small entities." 5 U.S.c. §§ 603(a), (c). The Act also requires the agency to make an extra 

effort to collect the input of small entities on the impact of the proposed rule by conducting open hearings, directly notifying 

small entities of the proposed rules, or publishing notice in trade publications. Id. § 609. The final analysis must discuss, among 

other things, the reasons why the agency adopted the alternatives it did. Id. § 604(a). In this case, the BLM did not comply 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act when it adopted the guidelines without any public notice, comment, or flexibility analysis. 

BLM's failure is not harmless error. The flexibility analysis offers the public an important way to participate in the rulemaking 

process, and for the agency to consider the negative impacts of the proposed measures on crucial sectors of the economy 

and determine how they can be avoided or mitigated. Id. §§ 603,604,609. Failing to conduct this kind of analysis for measures

that will have a significant economic impact on small entities is a breach of the agency's legal responsibilities. See S.Offshore 

Fishing Ass'n v. Daley, 995 F. Supp. 1411, 1434-36 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (holding that NMFS should have prepared an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for certain fishery quota reductions). Implementation of the interim guidelines and policies 

possibly will have substantial impacts on small businesses and communities affected by the new measures. For instance, 

businesses and communities possibly could lose access to BLM roads within priority habitat, if the agency determines that 

"continued use would result in habitat alterations or other physical disturbances that impair life history functions of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse, such as breeding, brood-rearing, migration patterns, or winter survival, as appropriate." See Interim 

Guidelines. Recreation industries and communities also possibly could lose access to BLM recreation sites. See Interim 

Guidelines ("Consider closing recreational sites either seasonally or permanently and restricting traffic to avoid or 

minimize effects of habitat alterations or other physical disturbances to Greater Sage-Grouse (e.g., breeding, brood-rearing, 

migration patterns, or winter survival)."). BLM's failure to analyze how to accomplish the interim guidelines' regulatory 

objectives and to minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities violates the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and renders reliance on those conservation policies and procedures arbitrary and capricious and without 

observance of procedure required by law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D).

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

986. D. The National Technical Team report should not be considered because the BLM failed to comply with FACA Under 

federal law, the BLM must establish and utilize advisory committees according to the provisions of Federal Advisory 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-199

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Committee Act ("FACA"). Because BLM failed to comply with the Act in establishing the National Technical Team, the 

agencies should not use the team's findings and conclusions during the revision process.

987. D. The National Technical Team report should not be considered because the BLM failed to comply with FACA i. The 

National Technical Team was an "advisory committee" subject to FACA FACA prohibits the establishment of "advisory 

committees" without adherence to the requirements for establishing and managing such committees. See 5 U.S.c. App. 2, § 

9. Through the passage of FACA, "Congress sought to recognize the importance of having advisory committees to the 

Executive Branch be completely open to public observation and comment." Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coal. v. Dep't of 

Interior, 26 F.3d 1103, 1106 (11 th Cir. 1994). Congress intended to counter the fear that committees would be dominated 

by groups seeking to advance their own agendas, and to ensure the public could remain appraised of the existence, activities,

and cost of advisory committees. See Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 491 U.S. 440,446 (1989) (citing 5 U.S.c. App. II § 

2(b». Here, the National Technical Team was an advisory committee that was "established" by BLM. Factors used to 

determine if a committee was established under FACA include whether the agency conceived of the committee or selected 

the membership for the committee. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 420 F.Supp.2d 1324, 1342 

(S.D.Fla. 2006). Or, whether the committee was funded or managed by the agency. See Sw. Ctr.for Biological Diversity v. 

Klasse, 1999 WL 34689321, at *12 (E.D.Cal. 1999)(citingAluminum Co. of A mer. v. Nat'/ Marine Fisheries Serv., 92 F.3d 902, 

906 (9th Cir. 1996». BLM established the Technical Team for the specific purpose of providing advice and recommendations 

for BLM on the conservation measures and management approaches for the management of Greater sagegrouse. BLM 

conceived of the team, selected the membership of the team, and managed the team. Therefore, the team was "established" 

by BLM as an advisory committee subject to FACA. Alternatively, even if the team was not deemed established by BLM, it 

was nonetheless "utilized" by BLM. See 5 U.S.c. App. 2, § 3(2)(C) (defining "advisory committee" as any group which is 

"established or utilized by one or more agencies"). An advisory committee is utilized if it is amenable to strict management 

by agency officials. Pub. Citizen, 491 U.S. at 457-58; see also Aluminum Co. of Amer., 92 F.3d at 905. Factors include whether 

the agency exerted control over or actually managed the committee, or whether the agency is the recipient of information 

from the committee or the committee was acting as an agent of the agency. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 420 F.Supp.2d at 

1342. With regard to the Technical Team, BLM both managed and received the information produced by the team. The 

BLM Nevada Deputy State Director of Resources was the team leader. And BLM both received and implemented the team's 

recommendations in the December 27, 2011 instruction memoranda. Thus, the team was "utilized" by BLM for FACA 

purposes. See California Forestry Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 102 F.3d 609, 610-12 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (finding that a scientific 

panel comprised of a mix of individuals from federal agencies, state universities, and a private university to conduct a 

scientific review of old growth forests was subject to FACA because: (1) the science panel's report was intended to serve as 

an element of the Forest Service's plan for ecosystem management; (2) the science panel viewed the Forest Service as the 

user of its report; and (3) the Forest Service used the report in developing a draft environmental impact statement); Nw. 

Forest Res. Council v. Espy, 846 F.Supp. 1009 (D.D.C. 1994) (applying FACA to advisory committee that rendered advice 

and recommendations on forest management policy); Heartwood, 431 F.Supp.2d at 35 (committee held to be subject to 

FACA because it was assembled for purpose of informing Forest Service's policy-making). The National Technical Team 

includes five non-federal members drawn from state wildlife agencies. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-200 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

("UMRA"), 2 U.S.c. § 1534, did not exempt the team from FACA simply because the team consisted of federal and state 

employees only. In contravention of FACA and the UMRA amendment, the team's meetings were not held between federal 

officials and "elected officers of State ... governments ... or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf." 

Id. § 1534(a). While "resource specialists and scientists" from the state fish and wildlife agencies were in attendance, there is 

no indication those state officials were "elected officers" or "designated employees." See Wyoming Sawmills, 179 F.Supp.2d 

at 1305 (indicating that state and tribal attendees must be "designated" and citing to specific letter of designation for such 

attendees); see also Idaho Wool Growers Assoc. v. Shafer, 637 F.Supp.2d 868, 876 (D. Idaho 2009) (without more than the 

Forest Service's conclusory statements to the contrary, "it cannot be said that the state officials in attendance during the 

Committees' meetings were either elected officials themselves, or designated to act on elected officials' behalf' as required 

by the UMRA).

988. D. The National Technical Team report should not be considered because the BLM failed to comply with FACA ii. BLM 

violated FACA in establishing and conducting the Technical Team FACA imposes a number of requirements on advisory 

committees that BLM violated with establishment and conduct of the Technical Team. See 5 U.S.c. App. 2 §§ 2, 9-14. For 

example, based on our review of the Federal Register, BLM did not establish the team following a determination as a matter 

of formal record in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.c. App. 2, § 9(a)(2). BLM also did not provide Federal Register notice of

its meetings. See Id. App. 2, § 1O(a)(2). Without notice, interested persons were deprived of the opportunity to attend, 

appear before, and file statements with the team. See Id. App. 2, § 1O(a)(3). Further, BLM failed to require that team 

membership was fairly balanced in terms of representing the points of view of non-governmental interests. Agency heads or 

other federal officials creating an advisory committee shall "require the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly 

balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee." Id. App. 

2, § 5(b)(2), (c). An advisory "committee must ... 'not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any 

special interest. '" In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 727 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting 5 U.S.c. app. II §§ 5(b)(2), (3) and (c». Here, not 

a single member of team was a representative of the mining, grazing, or other non-wildlife industries that would be affected 

by the team's findings and conclusions and that are also engaged in sciencebased sage-grouse conservation. Thus, BLM 

violated FACA in establishing and conducting the Technical Team.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

989. D. The National Technical Team report should not be considered because the BLM failed to comply with FACA iii. The 

Technical Team's findings and conclusions should not be used during the revision process Because BLM did not comply 

with the procedural mandates of FACA, the Technical Team's findings and conclusions cannot be used in any future agency 

decisionmaking. In Idaho Wool Growers Assoc. v. Shafer, 637 F.Supp.2d 868, 880 (D. Idaho 2009), the court found that the 

Forest Service violated FACA when it established two committees to study the risk of disease transmission from domestic 

sheep to bighorn sheep. The court held that the proper remedy was to prohibit the Service from relying on the findings and 

conclusions in the committees' reports with respect to any future agency decisions. Id. at 880; see also Alabama-Tombigbee 

Rivers, 26 F.3d at 1107 ("to allow the government to use the product of a tainted procedure would circumvent the very 

policy that serves as the foundation of [FACA],,). Due to BLM's violation of FACA, the Technical Report cannot be used 

during the revision process.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

990. Barrick is concerned about, among other things, the practical, on-the-ground implications of the agencies' proposed All Both emc0277GB, 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-201

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

conservation measures. The proposed EISs should clarify that the measures will recognize the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield. Also, the proposal should allow flexibili ty for the agencies to develop conservation measures in cooperation 

with the regulated community that include a strong but pragmatic mitigation program while simultaneously allowing 

continued economic development.

emc0112RM

991. The potential for cumulative impacts from the numerous threats described above is great and may exacerbate impacts to an 

already declining sage-grouse population. By themselves, the threats described above may have an impact that is difficult to 

quantify, but as a group they may have cumulative impacts that can significantly impact sage-grouse persistence. Cumulative

impacts are often difficult to assess but their assessment is critical in understanding the canopy of threats affecting this 

species.

All Both emc0276GB

992. One of the overarching issues with current agency policies is that they vary from forest to forest and from one RMP to 

another. Thus, sage-grouse might be better protected during the spring, but once they move to their wintering habitat to a 

different land management area, protection may be weakened or lost. This approach of variable management is inadequate 

to ensure the conservation and persistence of sage-grouse on public lands. Rather, all Forest Plans and RMPs should contain 

consistent conservation standards that direct activities within priority sage-grouse habitat, within currently occupied 

sage-grouse habitat, and within habitat capable of supporting sage-grouse. These directives must not only be consistent 

across landscapes, but they must be mandatory, binding, enforceable standards. Guidance and policies that are discretionary 

or unenforceable have led to the current dire situation of the sage-grouse, and thus do not constitute adequate regulatory 

mechanisms to protect the species. Similarly, implementing exceptions for otherwise mandatory standards can destroy the 

binding and non-discretionary nature of the directive, thus leading to inconsistent management and inadequate regulatory 

mechanism. Such weak management will fail to protect sage-grouse and will likely lead to the listing of the sage-grouse under 

the Endangered Species Act. In short, the BLM and Forest Service must include enforceable, binding standards that are

consistent in all RMPs and Forest Plans. These standards must direct what activities can be undertaken in sage-grouse habitat, 

how and when those activities can be undertaken in relation to sage-grouse habitat, including leks, nesting grounds, brood 

rearing habitat, and wintering habitat, and a clear statement that these standards are not guidelines that are suggestive in 

nature, but rather are requirements that are mandatory in nature. The agencies must not formulate exceptions or waivers 

for any activity that may harm sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat, for doing so leads to inconsistent management and will 

lead to listing of the sage-grouse, at which time all activities that harm sage-grouse will be forced to cease.

All Both emc0276GB

993. 4. The BLM and Forest Service Should Identify, Prioritize, and Facilitate Needed Research to Develop Information for 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitat Conservation in Coordination with the States and WAFWA. Although there has been an 

ever-increasing amount of research on sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat in recent decades, there are still many questions 

with regard to the decreasing populations of sage-grouse. For example, the effects of OHV use on sage-grouse or sagebrush 

habitats are relatively unknown, although experts have surmised about the potential effects. Additionally, although many 

experts believe that a buffer between leks and harmful activities may increase sage-grouse survival rates, it is unclear for 

which activities a buffer should be implemented, or how large that buffer should be based on scientific evidence. To gather 

answers to these important questions that will offer more insight on how to manage for healthy sage-grouse populations 

across the West, the BLM and Forest Service should identify, prioritize, and facilitate research opportunities with the States 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-202 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This should consist of range-wide cooperation and 

collaboration efforts. The agencies must also work to ensure that annual funding is available for such research and all

completed studies should be published, made easily accessible to the public, and peer-reviewed where necessary to affirm 

scientific accuracy.

994. Nothing in this determination should be based upon political endeavors or other agency priorities. When determining 

unoccupied but suitable sage-grouse habitat, the public should be given an opportunity to weigh in and final determinations 

should be based upon the biological and scientific information demonstrating the capability of the area to support 

sage-grouse. To this end, the agencies must complete, maintain, and update eco-regional assessments of sagebrush and 

sage-grouse habitats across the sagebrush biome prior to the initiation of any new projects. In concert with these 

identification efforts, the agencies must provide the public with highquality user-friendly maps. These maps should be 

included within each RMP and Forest Plan, and should document priority sage-grouse habitat, currently occupied 

sage-grouse habitat, and unoccupied but suitable sage-grouse habitat. Maps should be provided showing occupied habitat

during each season and stage of a sage-grouse’s life, including lekking areas, nesting habitat, brood rearing habitat, and 

wintering habitat. Areas capable of supporting sage-grouse during any one of these stages should be considered suitable 

habitat, even if unoccupied. Each RMP and Forest Plan should additionally include a map showing historic versus current 

range of the species.

All Both emc0276GB

995. 7. The BLM and Forest Service Should Manage Activities in a Manner to Protect Sage-Grouse to the Greatest Extent Possible 

in Occupied or Suitable Habitat. The National Technical Team mainly addresses priority habitat, and thus only addresses 

broad objectives in other sage-grouse habitat that also must be protected through this process.37 In areas that are occupied 

by sage-grouse but not determined to be priority habitat, or in areas unoccupied but suitable for sage-grouse, the agencies 

must implement standards to ensure that all activities and projects proceed in a manner aimed to protect sage-grouse to the 

greatest extent possible. Energy development, grazing, and other projects described above should be able to proceed in 

these areas as long as they can conform to standards set forth in the RMPs and Forest Plans. These standards must be 

stringent in order to protect suitable habitat, as the Technical Team Report noted that sage-grouse “may avoid otherwise 

suitable habitat as the density of roads, power lines, or energy development increases.”38 Furthermore, “avoidance is likely 

to result in true population declines if density dependence, competition, or displacement of birds into poorer-quality 

adjacent habitats lowers survival or reproduction.”39 Thus, density limits on infrastructure should be set in areas of suitable 

habitat that is outside of the priority habitat areas. An example of another standard would be setting reasonable buffers for 

all disturbing activities from leks and nesting grounds based on current science. Additionally, the agencies should require a 

“no net loss” of sagebrush habitat or sage-grouse populations at appropriate spatial and temporal scales when providing for 

non-renewable resource development and utilization or renewable energy development. The agencies should further 

develop and implement technologies and practices that offset, reduce and/or minimize disturbance to sage-grouse and their 

habitat associated with nonrenewable resource recovery activities. In areas where dispersed recreation is permitted, it 

should be managed in a way to avoid, reduce, and where possible eliminate, displacement of sage-grouse or negative impacts 

to sage-grouse habitat. Along those lines, we support the Technical Team Report’s measure to only allow special recreation 

permits that have neutral or beneficial affects to priority habitat areas.

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-203

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

996. In addition to ensuring compliance with land management plan standards, early project planning should consider not only the 

amount of habitat affected, but changes to habitat quality, resulting fragmentation, impacts to seasonal habitats and migratory 

pathways, effects of human presence and structures, noise levels, and other relevant considerations. Every effort must be 

made to design the project so as to minimize impacts to the species and its habitat. Once designed, these project 

specifications must be enforced. Similarly, relevant leases and permits should contain stipulations to ensure that sage-grouse 

will be protected throughout the life of the project or activity. Strategies for addressing potential effects of all these activities 

must be developed at the regional, state, and local levels.

All Both emc0276GB

997. 9. BLM Must Ensure that All Agency Actions are Consistent with the Conservation Needs of Sage-Grouse as a Special Status 

Species. The goal of the BLM’s Special Status Species policy is to improve conditions of the species habitat and increase 

population levels so that listing under the Endangered Species Act is unnecessary. In order to accomplish this goal, BLM 

requires that all actions it authorizes are managed in a manner that promotes the conservation of the species. Thus, the BLM 

must minimize or eliminate threats affecting sage-grouse and aim to recover struggling populations of the species. The 

suggestions above that would require elimination of major threats in sagegrouse priority habitat would comply with this 

policy. To further the ultimate goal of recovering populations and avoiding the need for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act, all land use plans must discuss management objectives, treatments, and means for assessing accomplishment in sufficient 

detail.

All Both emc0276GB

998. 10. BLM and Forest Service Should Not Rely on Adaptive Management, Mitigation, or Restoration to Permit Projects That 

May Harm Sage-Grouse. The Technical Team Report often references reliance upon adaptive management, mitigation

measures, or restoration to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.41 While the BLM and the Forest Service have 

often relied upon adaptive management, mitigation measures, or restoration promises to allow projects harmful to 

resources to proceed on public lands, sagegrouse and sagebrush habitat presents a unique situation, especially in terms of 

restoration. Restoration efforts on sagebrush land are often ineffective, and in limited instances where success may be 

achieved, restoration is expensive and can take decades or even centuries before the land is truly recovered. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has warned: Restoration of sagebrush habitat is challenging, and restoring habitat function may not be

possible because alteration of vegetation, nutrient cycles, topsoil, and cryptobiotic crusts have exceeded recovery 

thresholds. Even if possible, restoration will require decades and will be cost-prohibitive. 75 Fed. Reg. at 13975. The 

Technical Team Report suggests several measures for restoration of habitats, all of which we support providing that the 

promise of restoration is not used to permit otherwise harmful projects but rather are stand-alone projects to restore 

sage-grouse habitat.42 Adaptive management, while also generally adopted under good intentions, has proven difficult in 

many instances largely because funding is generally unavailable to complete steps necessary to truly understand the 

appropriate role of adaptive management. Without a stable source of funding, adaptive management practices cannot be 

used to conserve sage-grouse. Additionally, because there is so much scientific research necessary to understand how 

sage-grouse react to certain threats and how to best conserve the species and their habitat, using limited funds to focus on 

adaptive management methods does not seem like the best course of action at this time. If used, adaptive management must 

include triggers that require more protection for sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat if monitoring indicates that project 

activities are harming sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat. GYC generally supports mitigation efforts aimed at protecting 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-204 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse, although we believe that mitigation should be a last resort when considering new proposals, especially when 

aimed at habitat restoration or enhancement given the experimental and unproven nature of restoration activities. For 

example, while the Technical Team Report proposes a limit of new small project proposal to a total of 3% disturbance within 

priority sage-grouse habitat, the report allows for disturbance exceeding 3% for some infrastructure if “additional effective 

mitigation” is used to “offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse.”43 Whether mitigation will actually be effective in offsetting 

the loss of sage-grouse, however, is only projection and should not substitute for more protective prohibitions of priority 

sage-grouse habitat. In limited instances where mitigation is approved, GYC suggests the following. Mitigation required for 

projects outside of priority sage-grouse habitat should be limited to on-site mitigation to reduce the impacts of the harmful 

project or activity itself. If and where off-site mitigation is approved, it should focus on improving existing sage-grouse 

habitat, and not simply protecting existing refugia. Only when the affected land area has been reclaimed to the point of

supporting all seasonal needs of the local sage-grouse population may additional lands in the area be developed. At the very 

least, off-site mitigation efforts should occur within the same population area and within the same province or state as the 

impact due to the difficulty of reestablishing self-sustaining populations once they are extirpated and for ease of compliance

with provincial and state wildlife conservation laws and policies. Where adequate habitat cannot be mitigated within an 

existing sage-grouse population area, then mitigation should occur within the same Management Zone in which the effected 

population occurs. In this situation, mitigation should occur either based on geographical need if the success of the 

population reestablishment is the greatest and genetics are not an issue, or based on genetic needs if that is an important

issue.

999. 11. All RMPs and Forest Plans within the Ten Western States Identified in the Federal Register Notice Must Implement 

These Standards. The BLM has indicated that some RMPs currently undergoing revisions may not be amended to include the 

final sage-grouse directives because they are currently incorporating sage-grouse management initiatives. Even though these 

RMPs may provide protective standards for sagegrouse, it is impossible to know at this point if those standards will be as 

protective as the final standards that come out of this process. It is important that all management directives are consistent 

across the sage-grouse’s range, and thus even RMPs currently under revision that contain protective measures must be 

amended if measures more protective for sage-grouse come out of this process.

All Both emc0276GB

1000. In researching this issue, I have seen the proposed withdrawal maps and am astounded by the huge areas deemed “critical”. 

I have seen numerous comments criticizing and opposing the antiquated data used in preparation of the habitat maps. I have 

also seen comments criticizing and opposing the inappropriate methods of data use. I have also seen comments that the BLM

appears to have ignored the impacts of extensive fires, wild horses and hunting which have taken more Sage Grouse habitat 

than all other uses combined. All the opposition comments I’ve seen are from authoritative sources.

All Both emc0282GB 

emc0115rm

1001. I believe the proposed withdrawal ignores hunters, fires and the impacts on Sage Grouse habitat by wild horses. Further, the 

State of Nevada currently allows hunting of Sage Grouse. I am in favor of reasonable protective measures based on solid 

science and surveys; which is already being done by the BLM on a case by case basis. Has the BLM given the slightest 

consideration to the loss of its own present mining claim revenue stream, let alone the loss of Nevada jobs and related 

economic impacts? I have personally discussed this proposed protective withdrawal with a major northern Nevada rancher 

who has very long term and intimate knowledge of his ranch terrain. He is outraged by this proposed withdrawal. He is 

All Both emc0282GB 

emc0115rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-205

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

convinced that the main problem is fires, wild horses and hunting. The wild horse population problem is mentioned above. 

Nevada has a large Chukkar Partridge population. Those birds usually inhabit the same areas as Sage Grouse. Chukkar are 

very difficult to shoot – thus hunters will take Sage Grouse in lieu of Chukkar. We are convinced that the solution to the Sage 

Grouse problem is to directly protect them from hunting; and for the BLM to do a better job in wild horse and wildfire 

management. If the BLM wants to protect these birds, the solution is obvious - protect them from hunting, wild fires and wild 

horses.

1002. By state Executive Order, the state of Idaho is currently in the process of developing a state sage grouse conservation 

strategy which should be completed in June. Because this is being developed by a broadbased group of Idaho citizens who 

have local knowledge of sage grouse populations and the effects thereon, this plan will contain the most effective tools for 

managing the land and conserving sage grouse in Idaho. BLM/FS should defer to the Idaho plan and utilize it, where applicable, 

as the preferred alternative for BLM/FS lands within the state.

All Both emc0284GB

1003. Any management changes that the agencies undertake must be linked to the population status of the bird and this must be 

conducted on a site-specific basis. If sage grouse populations are stable, there should be no need to trigger additional 

management measures. If management changes are deemed necessary, those changes need to reflect the import of the 

habitat and account for the primary threats first.

All Both emc0284GB

1004. There are inherent disadvantages of inflexible, “one-size-fits-all” standards. An adaptive, case-by-case approach will ensure 

that efforts and resources expended in the name of greater sage-grouse conservation are well spent

All Both emc0284GB

1005. It is our belief that local citizens working together to resolve local issues offers the best chance of success. Federal agencies 

should defer to those local working groups that are on the path toward achieving results, and should not interfere with or 

conflict with the work of such groups.

All Both emc0284GB

1006. Regarding adequate residual plant cover, the regulations should reiterate that ecosystems, occupied habitat and greater 

sage-grouse population is varied and should not be managed by a “one-size-fitsall” approach, but rather by an approach that 

allows land managers, local working groups, and grazing permittees to collaborate on management practices that benefit the 

resources affecting individual populations in small areas—not over the entire west-wide greater sage-grouse range.

All Both emc0284GB

1007. On December 21, 2011, the Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) issued a report titled, “A Report on National 

Greater Sage- Grouse Conservation Measures.” We are concerned that the NTT report did not include input from any 

affected stakeholders or interdisciplinary experts aside from state and federal scientists and specialists; ignores regional 

variances in greater sage-grouse needs; is not a comprehensive representation of the literature and research surrounding 

livestock grazing; and has not been scientifically peer reviewed for accuracy. As such, we do not believe it should be 

considered as an alternative in EISs and SEISs in its current form.

All Both emc0284GB

1008. Ranchers’ ability to graze livestock on BLM and FS managed lands is critical to many of our western counties and rural 

economies. Thus, local and county governments should play an active role in land use planning. Local, state, and tribal 

governments should be granted full cooperating agency status when requested, and that the federal agencies should 

coordinate [when requested] with all existing local plans, as required by NEPA and other federal statutes

All Both emc0284GB

1009. The state of Idaho, as well as the rest of the Western US that run cattle on public land is necessary for people, the land, and All Both emc0285GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-206 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the economy. By removing cattle, fires will be inevitable, destroying sage grouse habitat as well as other wildlife.

1010. I urge you to protect the Greater Sage Grouse habitat. I believe we need to carefully consider what we do in terms of how 

it affects wildlife. This consideration does not always appear to be made when decisions regarding vegetation adversely affect 

wildlife. Often oil and gas drilling has decimated Sage Grouse habitat. Additionally, grazing can have an adverse effect. It is 

easy to avoid vegetation treatments in these areas. We need to have healthy productive sage for the Sage Grouse to flourish, 

and this can be done by planning how much grazing can occur and where it will occur. Unfortunately, the expansion of 

activity at the Alton mine is less a compromise measure. This expansion will lead to the decimation of much of our wildlife 

in the area.

All Both emc0288GB 

emc0118rm

1011. 1. page 4, Introduction, paragraph!. SRCA questions the references used by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team and

disagrees with the statement that, "Sage-grouse populations now occupy approximately one-half of their pre-European 

settlement distribution." Sightings of sage-grouse in Nevada's early history are almost non-existent. The sage-grouse wasn't 

even a staple of the Native American diet. This brings into question the entire need for the rest of this report and the 

objectives and goals listed. Could it be that sage-grouse are currently returning to "natural" population levels? (Hansen, 

2011)

All Both emc0289GB

1012. page 4, Introduction, paragraph 2. The National Policy and Direction will be based upon the "best available science." What

is the best available science? Current research and technical bulletins contain conflicting data as to the ideal percentage of 

vegetation coverage necessary for nest site selection and successful nesting. Vegetation measurements in support of 

minimum vegetation cover requirements or successful nesting guidelines should not be the only attribute or monitoring 

criteria for adjusting other land uses such as livestock grazing in nesting areas. (Schultz, 201 I) Much of the existing research 

comes from Wyoming, Colorado and Eastern California. Is the "best available science" corning from Nevada-specifically 

within the Great Basin? Ideally, it should come from Nevada, not extrapolated from existing research in other states. There 

exist a lot of variables within sagebrush habitats across the west, within Nevada, Elko County and even Northeast Elko 

County. If and when realistic, defensible guidelines are established and more importantly agreed upon, they must remain 

dynamic and flexible to ensure modification and consideration for local conditions.

All Both emc0289GB

1013. 8. page 14, Range Management, bullet point 1). The Shoshone Basin Sage-Grouse Coalition (working group) has been in place 

since 1994. This groups' area of consideration isjust north of the Nevada State Line. Nevada should look into the operating 

principals of this group, as the nesting success and increased numbers are very impressive! This is an excellent example 

oflivestock and wildlife benefiting from proper land use practices.

All Both emc0289GB

1014. Most ranchers are good stewards and take care of their allotments because their livelihood depends on it. If these public 

lands are taken care of properly, there shouldn’t be any impact on the sage-grouse population due to the balance of nature. 

Sometimes changes take place in an ecosystem, so animals have to adapt by relocating. In most instances, this relocation isn’t 

very far away, and within a certain time frame, the animal may move back to the original location. We feel the government 

really needs to stop meddling in some of these nature issues that just need to be left alone to run their course.

All Both emc0290GB

1015. Suggest that -The 3% surface area disruption be eliminated from all text and add in 20% and ratcheted down to 3% in 2% 

increments per year until habitat and population objectives are met. Thus, giving all land owners a chance to communicate 

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-207

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and cooperate together to achieve an accepted goal for habitat and population of the priority habitat areas. emc0119RM

1016. Suggest that –on page 7 bullet #4 omit the language “regardless of ownership” this will help to not discourage private land 

owners and volunteer groups from participating in the conservation measures suggested.

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 

emc0119RM

1017. Suggest that –on page 9, #3 Omit “40 acre off-site mitigation”, and input “implement a habitat improvement project adjacent 

to the disturbed area of not less that the amount of area being disturbed”. Further more, move the last paragraph “evaluation 

on a case- by case” to the end of the first paragraph. This adds sensible communication and workable language which will 

encourage cooperation between all parties involved.

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 

emc0119RM

1018. Suggest that –on page 9 bullet #3. Edit language “and provide connectivity between priority areas” and add “where feasibility 

is dictated by common sense” Again this adds sensible communication and workable language which will encourage 

cooperation between all parties involved.

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 

emc0119RM

1019. Suggest that – on Page 11 bullet #3. “Complete activity level plans within five years of the record of decision. During activity 

level planning, where appropriate, designate routes with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative 

access only.” omit this statement as it leaves volunteer habitat conservationist with the impression that their work and 

efforts are unimportant and avoidable.

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 

emc0119RM

1020. Suggest that –on Page 11 bullet #5. Omit the last sentence “if that disturbance exceeds 3% for that area, then make 

additional, effective mitigation necessary to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat.”

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 

emc0119RM

1021. Suggest that –Page 23 dark round bullets #8 omit “Base the reclamation cost on the assumption that contractors for the 

BLM will perform the work”. This statement eliminates the ability of local working groups and committees to pursue and 

conduct reclamation activities in a free market system.

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 

emc0119RM

1022. It is clear that more work needs to be done by federal land managers and private land owners to conserve and restore, in 

some cases, the habitat of the greater sage-grouse. However, there needs to be a cooperative effort between these two 

entities, and where regulations may me required, both entities must set down at the table to work trough the issues before 

further regulations are imposed by the federal land managers. Regulations of the regulations will only create an adversarial 

relationship ending in total disregard for the initial goal. Pleas be advised as you work on the Environmental Impact 

Statements (EIS’s) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS’s), you need to include livestock producers in 

your efforts.

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 

emc0119RM

1023. In order to see the sage grouse thrive we need to have laws in place that see to it that predators are dealt with. As ranchers 

of sheep (one of the most defenseless animals) we can assure you that predators should be our main concern in protecting 

the sage grouse. Our sheep sometimes share the same habitat as the sage grouse. And the things that do the most damage 

to our business is not the weather. Not hunters. Not illnesses. Not mining. Not pollution. But the leading cause of death loss 

to our flocks are the predators. They cost us many untold dollars a year.

All Both emc0293GB

1024. The next war that needs to be waged is against predators. Not ranchers or hunters. Documentation of early explorers of the 

west tell us that before the ranchers where here natives ate bugs much more often then sage grouse (not due to personal 

All Both emc0293GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-208 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

preference, we are sure!). Now that the ranchers are here people hunt sage grouse for sport. And studies show that as the 

number of livestock on the range decrease so goes the sage grouse. Why is that? We are sure you've already heard the 

theories.

1025. I am writing to support the Sage Grouse Recovery Alternative submitted by the conservation community. This recovery 

alternative would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service to identify priority sage grouse 

habitat that includes breeding, brooding, and winter habitats necessary to support and expand the sage grouse population; 

measures that truly meet the agencies’ stated goals.

All Both emc0297GB, 

em0120RM, 

emc0123RM

1026. Implement the recommendations of the Sage-grouse National Technical Team: The management recommendations outlined 

in the Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures are an important starting point for achieving 

effective conservation, and the BLM should strive to implement them to the fullest extent possible as range-wide standards 

incorporated into each RMP, while also refining them further to better address specific issues, such as vegetation 

management and energy development.

All Both emc0297GB, 

em0120RM, 

emc0123RM

1027. Mitigation must generate net conservation benefits: Mitigation requirements should emphasize avoidance and minimization 

of impacts. Actions to offset unavoidable impacts should generate net conservation benefits for sage grouse populations and 

habitats consistent with the conservation purposes and principles of the National Sage-grouse Planning Strategy.

All Both emc0297GB, 

em0120RM, 

emc0123RM

1028. Apply these measures for all sage grouse populations on public lands including Mono Basin populations in the 

California-Nevada bi-state area and the Washington state populations.

All Both emc0297GB, 

em0120RM, 

emc0123RM

1029. Sage-grouse occur on a complex sagebrush-dominated landscape with tremendous variability locally and range wide. It is 

ecologically impossible to regulate for improved sage-grouse performance with a "one-size-fits-all" set of regulatory 

measures. For the National Sage-Grouse Strategy to be successful, it is essential that it allow for regional and site-specific 

approaches to conserving sage-grouse and habitat, incorporating expertise of local land-users and experts such as ranchers 

and locally knowledgeable range scientists.

All Both emc0315GB

1030. To shut down the natural raw industries, whether it be mining, subsurface extraction of either oil & gas or geothermal, 

surface use of ranching and farming, seems to me that you are cutting future revenue for your own existence as an agency to 

manage the Public Lands as well as that of the State of Nevada, along with the other Western States for generations to come.

All Both emc0320GB

1031. I have some concerns with the maps that will be used to determine Priority Habitat and General Habitat. These maps were 

made available in Nevada on or about March 16, 2012 - just one week prior to the deadline for comments. This was not 

sufficient time to allow me to review the maps and identify any need for corrections. Given the reliance of the 

implementation of the sage-grouse conservation measures on the location of Priority and General Habitats, I believe these 

maps should be labeled as "DRAFT' at this time and there should be opportunity to modify the maps as information is 

checked.

All Both emc0322GB

1032. The National Technical Team (NTT) report (NTT 2011) places great emphasis on the maps which identify Priority Habitat 

and General Habitat, and I am not aware of any public input into these maps. Therefore, the I request that an opportunity 

must be reserved at the activity-authorization level for affected parties to confirm the maps proposed for use in the EIS.

All Both emc0322GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-209

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1033. I believe that the best way to provide for protection of the sage-grouse, while simultaneously allowing continued economic 

development, is for BLM to develop conservation measures in cooperation with the regulated community that include a 

strong but pragmatic mitigation program.

All BLM emc0322GB

1034. I was pleased to see the mention and use of Ecological Site Descriptions and State and Transition Models to identify seasonal

habitats, guide habitat management, and influence fire rehabilit2tion efforts. This·information is science-based and provides 

insight on how the habitats can be managed for long-term sustainability.

All Both emc0322GB

1035. Overall, I find the conservation measures to be very negative and very restrictive. All Both emc0322GB

1036. There is no attempt to identify positive conservation measures that improve habitat; although the goal is to "Maintain and/or 

increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem." There 

should be some room in this goal for including conservation measures that actively improve habitat quality.

All Both emc0322GB

1037. The goal of the conservation measures as indicated on page 6 of the NTT report is to "Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse 

abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend 

in cooperation with other conservation partners." There are a lot of concepts included in this goal that need clarification. For 

example, to increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution implies that other resource uses will be diminished and how 

will that decision be made? The sagebrush ecosystem is a disturbance based system in Nevada, where fire, floods, insect 

outbreaks, and drought have removed sagebrush from areas of the landscape for periods of time and perennial grasses and 

forbs dominate after the disturbance. This is followed by a period of time when grasses, forbs, and young shrubs are present,

and as the shrubs increase in stature and abundance, the grasses and forbs decline until there is a sagebrush-dominated plant 

community, ready for the next disturbance. If "conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem" means 

maintaining these various phases of the sagebrush community on the landscape, then many land uses can be accommodated. 

However, the report implies that only the sagebrush-dominated phase is important. I disagree and believe that a healthy 

ecosystem is one with many phases of the sagebrush ecosystem present on the landscape. This concept is much more in 

concert with the Ecological Site Descriptions and the State and Transition Models being developed by Natural Resource 

Conservation Service.

All Both emc0322GB

1038. I as a guide operate under the conditions provided in their Special Recreation Pennits (SRPs) and I would like to be included 

in any decisions that determine which SRPs have neutral or beneficial affects to priority habitat areas. Most of our activity is 

focused on summer and fall recreation; therefore, it does not occur during breeding or nesting periods.

All Both emc0322GB

1039. I support the use of Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) for conducting range health assessments as the ESD concept includes 

the use of State and Transition Models that document the various community phases for each ecological site, as well as the 

thresholds that require management actions to avoid crossing the thresholds. These concepts are important in maintaining 

the integrity of ecological sites, sustainability of range resources, "and maintaining "intact sagebrush" (as defined by including 

all the community phases of an ecological site, including grass-dominated conditions following disturbance).

All Both emc0322GB

1040. In closing, I support the concept of enhancing sage-grouse populations and habitat. But the conservation measures in the 

NTT report create real concerns that socio-economic and ecological impacts will occur by implementing these conservation 

measures, but very few gains in sage-grouse populations or habitat will be realized by implementing these conservation 

All Both emc0322GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-210 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

measures.

1041. I encourage the BLM and USFS to conduct a full, thorough, and objective analysis of these conservation measures. We also 

request that the BLM and USFS consider an alternative that allows for energy and mineral development and sustained 

livestock management, and includes the opportunity to mitigate the impacts that these activities may cause. Simply not 

continuing multiple-use activities on public land is not the answer to the sage-grouse listing issue.

All Both emc0322GB

1042. I am concerned about, among other things, the practical, on-the-ground implications of the agencies' proposed conservation 

measures. The proposed EIS should clarify that the measures will recognize the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

All Both emc0322GB

1043. I look forward to working with the BLM and USFS to achieve a Record of Decision that promotes multiple-use principles, 

enhances conditions for sage-grouse, and has limited socio-economic impacts for our community. I believe that such an 

outcome is possible, but not by implementing these very restrictive conservation measures.

All Both emc0322GB

1044. We are concerned that BLM not develop a 'one size fits all' GSG management strategy. We have experience with GSG 

range-wide, from the uplands of Nevada through the northern and central Rocky Mountains of Montana, Wyoming, Utah 

and Colorado and into the northern Great Plains of eastern Wyoming and Montana. The weather, soils, vegetation and 

ecology of these areas varies across the range. Acceptable practices in one location may be detrimental in another. We 

encourage the BLM to consider the differences within the range and not make broad sweeping regulations that over-reach 

in one location, but might be reasonable in another.

All BLM emc0303GB

1045. Having spent the past 6 or more years working with Local Sage Grouse Working groups across the range, We have been 

impressed with the dedication, knowledge, insight and creativity expressed by the people who know these areas - their 

ability to identify stressors, threats and solutions to maintain or enhance GSG in their area. These local Working Groups 

included BLM biologists and range conservationists. The quickest way to lose the support of these hundreds of dedicated 

people is to disregard the hard work and existing GSG Local Working Group Conservation Plans already done. It is 

absolutely essential that BLM management henceforth recognizes and incorporates the work of the local working groups 

throughout the range of the GSG and maintains their adaptive management approach.

All Both emc0303GB

1046. Monitoring-We encourage BLM to seek landowner comments on how monitoring for GSG will be done and how the data 

obtained is interpreted.

All BLM emc0303GB

1047. IM should be adaptive and dynamic. IM should be responsive to new information, research, technology, knowledge, and 

environmental conditions.

All Both emc0303GB

1048. Incorporate information from BLM REA's. All BLM emc0305GB

1049. Establish partnerships at local (local working groups) and regional (LCCs and climate science centers) scales for sage grouse 

conservation strategies.

All Both emc0305GB

1050. Consider opportunities to use "citizen science data" in monitoring and other data gathering efforts. All Both emc0305GB

1051. NEI respectfully asks BLM to adopt a balanced approach to sage grouse conservation that is consistent with BLM’s statutory 

mandate for multiple uses of public lands and avoids or minimizes adverse social and economic impacts.

All BLM emc0306GB 

rmc0124rm

1052. NEI recommends that sage grouse habitat be accurately mapped through sound environmental assessment and that more All Both emc0306GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-211

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

focus be given to proven threats to sage grouse viability, such as invasive species and fires.

1053. NEI respectfully asks BLM to adopt a balanced approach to sage grouse conservation that is consistent with BLM’s statutory 

mandate for multiple uses of public lands and avoids or minimizes adverse social and economic impacts.

All BLM emc0306GB

1054. NEI endorses the comment letter of the National Mining Association regarding BLM’s Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on 

incorporation of conservation measures to protect the greater sage grouse.

All Both emc0306GB

1055. Sage grouse habitat categorization maps are now available to guide conservation and land use planning efforts at the 

landscape scale. These maps are useful but planning efforts must provide for coordinated and collaborative efforts that 

involve all interests (especially grazing permittees) in site specific decision making for land specific use actions which might 

involve sage grouse. We know already of unnecessary restrictions imposed on mineral and energy exploration proposals 

because potential sage grouse habitat "could be" compromised. We fear that unnecessary limitations could also affect habitat 

actions involving fire rehab and improvements for livestock and other wildlife.

All Both emc0307GB

1056. Land Use Plan revisions must allow for different resource conditions and capabilities across the region with provision for 

involvement by local planning groups. It is essential that they include state agencies, local government entities such 

as‐counties, cities, conservation districts, and state grazing boards as well as representatives of non government 

organizations. Those with regulatory authority must be involved. Our board has been quite involved with the 

California/Nevada Bi‐State Group where the Mono Sage Grouse Distinct Population Segment exists. This is a good example 

of cooperation with full consideration for resource capabilities and private/public land inter‐relationships.

All Both emc0307GB

1057. Land Use Plan revisions need to allow for review and special attention to existing work, such as allotment management plans 

and government land use plans. This review may find that only small or no changes are needed to better recognize sage 

grouse needs rather than drastic revisions.

All Both emc0307GB

1058. Sage grouse presence and habitats in relation to other uses, explorations and developments need to be recognized. These 

include wind, geothermal, solar, oil/gas, mining, urban and suburban influences, and recreation activities.

All Both emc0307GB

1059. The N3 Grazing Board strongly questions the need and even the legality of incorporating additional sage grouse conservation 

measures into land use plans to "avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act". The 5000 mature bird minimum 

population determined by the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the species from the long term risk of extinction is 

exceeded many times in the Greater Sage Grouse population. It is a well documented fact that sage grouse populations were 

very limited in the nineteenth century when explorers and emigrants first traveled the American West.

All Both emc0307GB

1060. As part of its conservation work, the Sagebrush Fund is interested in protecting listed or candidate sensitive, threatened or 

endangered native species, including the Greater Sage Grouse. Working cooperatively with the BLM and other agencies to 

voluntarily implement conservation on both public and private lands is also a focus for the Sagebrush Fund. As the BLM has 

already recognized, a variety of disturbances, such as roads, invasive weeds, energy, agricultural or residential development, 

livestock grazing and fire, pose threats to sage grouse.

All BLM emc0308GB

1061. Threats to sage-grouse, including livestock grazing, fences, water developments, energy infrastructure and transmission, 

road building and maintenance, prescribed fire, and vegetative seedings and treatments, should be managed in priority and 

general habitat to enhance sage-grouse populations.

All BLM emc0308GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-212 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1062. Existing developments should be removed where possible, and any proposed developments should be co-located and close 

to existing disturbance or infrastructure to eliminate further disturbance and fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat.

All BLM emc0308GB

1063. The BLM should develop and implement restoration plans in priority sage grouse habitat, to include removal of fencing, 

water developments and other potential threats to sage grouse.

All BLM emc0308GB

1064. Western Energy Alliance and its member companies have a vested interest in the decisions made by the BLM regarding 

management of GSG and its habitat that affect existing and future leases, and exploration and development activities in the 

West. We support the development of management policies that will prevent the species from being listed under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), but are concerned that the recommended protection measures in the National Technical 

Team’s Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures (the “Report”) are excessively restrictive.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1065. To ensure the planning process is fully informed by those who will be impacted by future GSG management restrictions, we 

recommend that BLM form a collaborative technical stakeholder team consisting of agencies, oil and gas industry, mining, 

conservation groups, ranchers and others to develop a strategy to clearly define and implement priority habitat selection 

criteria along with disturbance calculation criteria before September 2014. For similar efforts such as the Wyoming Sage 

Grouse Core Area Executive Order, Dunes Sagebrush Lizard Conservation Plan, and other species conservation plans, 

several years were needed to finalize a properly vetted strategy agreed to by many of the stakeholders involved. In addition, 

it will be up to state wildlife agencies, the oil and gas industry, and other stakeholders to implement monitoring strategies.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1066. Methods to incentivize habitat enhancement, conservation easements, and other measures on private lands should also be 

considered in BLM’s planning effort. We support the development of a framework that encourages oil and gas operators, 

private landowners, state and federal agencies, and others to develop collaborative efforts that mitigate impacts to local sage 

grouse populations and protect and enhance priority and other habitat.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1067. We appreciate BLM’s decision to allow state GSG management strategies to supersede the Interim Management IM after 

approval by the USFWS and adoption by BLM in a statespecific IM, as done in Wyoming. Rather than top‐down, federal 

directives, GSG conservation should be guided by initiatives developed at the state and local levels. Accordingly, Western 

Energy Alliance supports western states in their efforts to develop common‐sense and consistent management practices for 

GSG.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1068. However, we believe BLM’s needs to explicitly state that once a state plan is adopted, it supersedes BLM’s conservation 

measures. BLM should not be able to selectively choose whether to use its plan or the state plan on an arbitrary case‐by‐case 

basis. If BLM issues a state‐level IM that supersedes the Interim Guidance IM, only the state plan should be used to guide 

management decisions, rather than a combination of state and federal plans. In addition, for those states with management 

plans for GSG that have been approved by USFWS and adopted by BLM through the issuance of a state‐level IM, the RMPs 

in that state should be amended to incorporate the state’s policy, not the recommended conservation measures in the 

NTT’s Report.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1069. BLM must consider and analyze the conservation measures from the Report in at least one alternative in each of the EISs or 

SEISs. The conservation measures that could ultimately be incorporated into RMPs may be inconsistent with existing statute 

or regulations, and are onerous to the point of driving out investment, conflicting with federally issued leases and job 

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-213

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

creation activities.

1070. We are particularly concerned that BLM may incorporate into the RMPs certain conservation measures outlined in the 

Report, including a four‐mile NSO buffer around leks and 3% surface disturbance limitation for leases entirely within priority 

habitat. These restrictions are not supported by science and are much more onerous than even the most restrictive 

management strategies used across the range of the species. Applying a NSO restriction of four miles around leks will 

prevent new oil and gas development and may ultimately result in the infringement of valid existing rights (see ‘Valid Existing 

Lease Rights’ below).

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1071. We also urge BLM to incorporate conservation measures and best management practices into RMPs that recognize the local 

working group efforts, surveys, and credible information about the status of GSG and its habitat within the planning area 

covered by that RMP. Broadly applying the conservation measures in the Report without a thorough examination of the 

condition of the species in a specific area could result in unjustified and unreasonable restrictions on multiple‐use 

development under the amended RMP.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1072. Conservation and mitigation measures should be developed on a case‐by‐case basis and must be informed by local 

conditions and other information. Numerous conservation measures and programs have already been implemented across 

the range of GSG through the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). These efforts take into

account site‐specific conditions to ensure their effectiveness.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1073. We request that BLM acknowledge and incorporate recent studies regarding the impact of oil and gas activities on GSG 

viability into the EISs and SEISs. Copies of these studies have been attached to these scoping comments as Attachments B and 

C.1 Attachment B, “Thresholds of Energy Development and Greater Sage‐Grouse Populations,” was conducted in Wyoming 

to show the actual impacts of energy development on GSG using the most current publicly available data on lek attendance 

in areas with full‐field development. Attachment C, “Oil and Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus): A Review of Threats and Mitigation Measures,” is a detailed technical review of previous research regarding 

general threats of oil and gas development to sage grouse and examines the reliability of various mitigation measures. We 

also recommend that BLM consider two new studies on predation of sage‐grouse in the analysis. Copies of these studies 

have been attached to these scoping comments as Attachments D and E.2

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1074. These studies have been subjected to formal peer review by highly‐respected wildlife journals and should be utilized in the 

BLM’s planning effort to address GSG. The analysis in the EISs or SEISs must consider all credible and recent scientific 

information in the alternatives for each of the EISs and not to rely solely upon the conservation measures outlined in the 

Report.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1075. In the Report, the BLM NTT’s stated objective for this planning strategy effort was “to...conserve and restore the greater 

sage‐grouse and its habitat on BLM‐administered lands on a range‐wide basis over the long term.”3 [Emphasis added] We 

object to this statement because restoring sage grouse numbers falls under the purview of the USFWS, not BLM. Further, 

the conservation measures identified in the Report, which have been crafted to meet this objective, are extremely restrictive 

and go far beyond what is necessary to protect a non‐listed species. We recommend that BLM clarify that restoring the 

species and its habitat is not part of this planning effort.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-214 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1076. Through this process, BLM should not amend any aspects of the RMPs except those related to GSG management. Doing so 

would be out of the scope of this planning effort and will drastically extend the amount of time needed for the already 

herculean task of updating 68 RMPs.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1077. The conservation measures ultimately imposed by BLM may result in the violation of valid existing lease rights that could lead 

to legal actions taken by leaseholders to protect those rights. While the Interim Guidance IM includes some language 

regarding the application of restrictions that are consistent with valid existing lease terms, we are concerned that subsequent 

actions made by BLM under the IM could prevent operators from developing their valid existing lease rights. BLM should 

respect valid existing rights and provide ample flexibility during the planning process to enable projects that adequately 

mitigate and minimize adverse impacts to GSG. Further, BLM should not impose conservation measures or restrictions that 

would provide the same or greater restrictions on activities that would be applied under the Endangered Species Act, at the 

expense of valid existing lease rights.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1078. For example, BLM may try to impose NSO restrictions on active leases or require certain Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for permits within priority habitats. BLM cannot legally impose new NSO 

stipulations or COAs on existing lease rights that differ from those entered under the original contractual terms.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1079. Pursuant to FLPMA, all BLM actions, such as authorization of Resource Management Plans, are "subject to valid existing 

rights." 43 U.S.C. § 1701 note (h); see also 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5‐ 3(b) (BLM is required to recognize valid existing lease rights). 

Thus, pursuant to federal statute, the BLM cannot terminate, modify, or alter any valid or existing property rights through a 

RMP amendment.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1080. Federal agencies cannot impose stipulations or conditions of approval that make development on existing leases either 

uneconomic or unprofitable contrary to "valid existing rights." See Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp. 995, 1011 (D. Utah 1979). 

BLM cannot prohibit lessees from developing their leases and any RMP amendment must specifically make this declaration in 

support of valid existing rights. See, e.g. National Wildlife Federation, 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999). Based upon the above legal 

requirements of FLPMA, BLM cannot approve management prescriptions that may impair, block access to, or render 

uneconomic existing federal oil and gas leases.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1081. The Report recommends that BLM close priority sage‐grouse habitats to future leasing, except in areas that are not entirely 

federally owned. A decision to discontinue leasing in all PPH areas that are not entirely federally owned would unreasonably 

block access to significant energy resources on thousands of acres of public lands and deprive state and federal coffers of 

significant revenue from leasing and the subsequent development of those leases. Moreover, operators may be forced to 

abandon projects outside of PPH areas if they are unable to lease adjacent or nearby parcels within those areas. Closing all

leasing in a large area for one species clearly does not balance wildlife protection with economic, job and energy security 

concerns.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1082. Through the Interim Guidance IM, proposed leasing decisions may be forwarded to the appropriate State Director, NTT, or 

even the BLM Director in Washington. We are concerned that future leasing in and around GSG habitat could be 

unreasonably delayed, or not occur at all, due to the bureaucratic decision‐making process laid out in the IM.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1083. We are very concerned about the limited timeframe of this planning effort and feel that BLM may not be able to complete All BLM emc0312GB, 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-215

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the efforts outlined in the Planning Direction IM by the end of FY 2014. BLM struggles to meet existing obligations such as 

monitoring, inspection & enforcement, project NEPA processing, and permitting at current staffing levels, yet must now 

rededicate significant resources to updating 68 RMPs by September 2014. Normally, updating even a single RMP takes 

several years.

emc0126RM

1084. BLM field offices may also need additional resources to institute the management policies set forth in the Interim Guidance 

IM and the RMP amendments. Specifically, BLM field offices may require additional staff with relevant expertise to administer 

new GSG management requirements for individual projects, such as calculating density disturbances within priority habitat 

areas. Additionally, BLM must ensure that the preparation of the EIS and subsequent RMP amendments does not prevent 

BLM field office employees from regularly processing NEPA documents, Applications for Permits to Drill (APD), and sundry

notices in a timely manner. The administrative efficiency of BLM field offices is directly related to industry’s ability to provide 

affordable energy resources from public lands across the West.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1085. At this time, it is very unclear how an analysis will be performed to determine priority habitat requirements and boundaries 

within federal management units. We request that BLM clarify how these boundaries will be drawn in accordance with state 

wildlife agencies and what criteria will be used to draw boundaries between priority, general, and associated habitat.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1086. Western Energy Alliance recommends that BLM incorporate Adaptive Management (AM) in this planning effort. AM allows 

project proponents to adjust approaches for GSG management based on new data acquired through monitoring. AM also 

allows BLM the necessary flexibility to modify management policies and decisions based on what is actually happening on the 

ground.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1087. Further, the revised RMPs should allow the BLM to critically assess information about habitat on a local or regional basis 

when it considers GSG stipulations on individual projects. Efforts of local working groups, including site‐specific research, 

must be identified and incorporated into the planning process when applicable.

All Both emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1088. Based on the restrictions outlined in the Interim Guidance IM and the Report, we are concerned that BLM may ultimately 

violate Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires federal land management agencies to ensure that the 

least restrictive stipulations are utilized to protect resource values. Accordingly, we recommend that BLM adhere to the law 

and apply the least restrictive stipulation from the alternatives in the EISs and SEISs.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1089. Given the limited timeframe of this planning effort, we request that BLM tier to existing RFDs that were completed for RMPs 

that were recently updated or are in the process of being updated. This will allow BLM to utilize local information and 

expertise rather than attempting to prepare an additional regional RFD.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1090. Balancing the development of natural gas and oil resources with the protection of local populations of greater sage‐grouse 

and their habitat in the planning areas will provide significant benefits to local communities, the state, and the nation. 

Western Energy Alliance and its members look forward to continue working cooperatively with the BLM and other 

stakeholders in this planning effort to ensure the balanced use of the resources across the West.

All BLM emc0312GB, 

emc0126RM

1091. The AMA and its members have concerns with the NO! regarding BLMs sage grouse conservation measures for the 

following reasons: I) over simplification of management issues; 2) difference between highways, roads and trails on wildlife; 

3) maps lack specificity; and, 4) management plans be less prescriptive.

All BLM emc0313GB, 

emc0127RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-216 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1092. Most researchers have come to the undeniable conclusion that sage grouse management is a multifaceted complex issue. It 

involves adequate cover, proper forage area, weather issues, animal predators, birds of prey, adequate water sources, and 

issues such as the types of roads, and the timing as well as the length of the hunting seasons. The human disturbance etiology 

by itself is an over simplification of the problem that will cause dramatic damage to small local economies with little impact 

on species survival.

All Both emc0313GB, 

emc0127RM

1093. In viewing the maps that try to define Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat, there is a lack of 

specificity. This raises the concern about closing nearly all sage brush covered area to any access. We urge state BLM 

directors quickly draw up maps with more detail that defines the problems more clearly.

All BLM emc0313GB, 

emc0127RM

1094. We urge the management plans be less prescriptive so that management plans can be tailored to the specific areas. We 

recommend that more effort be used to delineate vital narrow areas of concern that does not have such far reaching 

consequences. Finally, we recommend that terms in common usage be used to inform the public about conservation efforts 

and avoid terms such as anthropogenic meaning "human-related." The BLM should use layman terms in dealing with the

general population.

All BLM emc0313GB, 

emc0127RM

1095. There are several protection measures available for lessening a potential listing impact on all rangelands. Candidate Species

Conservation Agreements, with Assurances ( CCAA's ) are a permit agreement between landowners/managers and the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service, that can include other public lands except federally owned. Candidate Conservation Agreements 

( CCA's ) are generally the highest level of agreement that can be applied to Federal lands. There has been suggestion of 

connectivity between a CCAA for a private landowner, and a CCA for that landowner's grazing allotment on Federal lands, 

but so far there has not a fail-safe guarantee of such connectivity. CCAA's can be permits just with individual landowners, an 

umbrella permit between each landowner, a coordinating group for a number of permits, or a "programmatic" CCAA, in 

which the permit is between USF&WS and a third party with agreements between the third party and voluntary landowner 

signatories. Another protection measure, proven by precedent on large landscape habitat protection, and involving private, 

and adjacent Federal lands is also available for implementation. That measure is the Coordinated Resource Management Plan 

(CRMP) exclusive to SWCD's, and NRCS. It is a planning process, and involves strategies and agreements between 

cooperating landowners for specific purposes. It could serve as a protection tool in sage grouse habitat/ecosystems, so long 

as it contained all the required language in the USF&WS permit requirements. It might be a means to overcome the 

non-guarantee status of the CCAA/CCA situation.

All Both emc0314GB

1096. Use all-lands strategies for ecosystem management, at large landscape scales. All Both emc0314GB

1097. Provide the connectivity ability within CCAA/CCA/CRMP agreements. All Both emc0314GB

1098. Protect landscapes from further fragmentation of habitat/ecosystems for sage grouse and associated species All Both emc0314GB

1099. We are in support of the comments submitted by several Nevada Counties including Elko, Eureka, Humboldt and Nye. 

Additionally, as a member the Western Counties Alliance we support the comments submitted by that association. We urge 

you to give their comments, and ours, significant consideration as your agency moves forward.

All Both emc0318GB

1100. Nevada's Counties are host to the largest amount of federally managed public lands of any state. As such they are more 

impacted by the policies and practices employed by the federal land management agencies. NACO has long supported the 

All Both emc0318GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-217

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

multiple use of the public lands within the state. Many of our rural communities and counties depend on the continued 

multiple use of these lands for the quality of life they enjoy and for the economic sustainability of their communities. 

Restrictions on what activities are allowed to take place on the lands our counties host can have serious negative impacts on 

the counties and the people that live in them and should only be imposed as a last resort. We are concerned that some of 

the management practices proposed in the NOI will harm Nevada's counties. Additionally, we believe that some of the 

proposed actions will have the opposite effect as their stated goals and will result in further reduction of sage-grouse 

population and habitat.

1101. We disagree with the Fish and Wildlife Service's finding that "the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to conserve the 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat is a significant threat" to preventing the bird from being listed as a threatened or 

endangered species. The federal land management agencies currently have in place numerous regulatory mechanisms 

regarding activities on the public lands. It could be argued that there are in fact too many and in some cases overlapping and 

contradictory regulations and that the misapplication or overzealous enforcement of these existing regulations have 

contributed to the perceived decline in the populations and habitat of the greater sage-grouse.

All Both emc0318GB

1102. NACO encourages the counties to work closely with the federal land management agencies. We have long worked to help 

build relationships between the entities. It is our position that federal laws, including FLPMA and NEPA, require this 

coordination and that the federal agencies must consider the counties' land use plans in developing their management plans. 

Sadly, we do not believe that the federal agencies have fully embraced this concept. Any changes to federal management 

regulations and practices, including the Environmental Impact Statements and Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statements as referenced in the December 9, 2001 NOI, should only be adopted or implemented after meaningful 

coordination with the counties.

All Both emc0318GB

1103. We are concerned that the proposed changes to management of what has been identified as "Preliminary Priority Habitat" 

and "Preliminary General Habitat" appear to contain a bias against other uses of the public lands including livestock grazing. 

We encourage the federal agencies to undertake a thorough review of historical data regarding the reported population of

the sage-grouse, the number of AUMs authorized across the state and the number of acres burnt by wildfires. We believe 

that there is ample anecdotal evidence that illustrates that the reduction of livestock grazing has a correlation to the 

decrease in sage-grouse populations and the dramatic increase in the number of acres consumed by wildfire to require an 

in-depth analysis to determine if there is a connection. It is ironic that historical stewardship by livestock grazers and other 

users of the public lands is now being couched in terms like "alternative management" or "adaptive management" in order to 

get the federal land management agencies to consider their value in managing and conserving the public lands. Additionally, 

it is not clear that the federal agencies complied with the Administrative Procedures Act in the designation of these

preliminary habitats as there appears to not have been any public notice or input during the process.

All Both emc0318GB

1104. NACO believes that a listing of the greater sage-grouse at this time is not warranted. Further, we believe that adapting 

management plans in a manner that would restrict other historic uses of the public lands to prevent a potential listing is not 

justified and could quite possibly be detrimental to the sage-grouse and the public lands themselves. We urge the land 

management agencies to continue to work with the counties and the local users of the public lands to utilize time-tested

resource management strategies including the use of managed livestock grazing to reduce the hazardous fuel loads and 

All Both emc0318GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-218 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

improve sage-grouse habitat.

1105. About the limited timeframe of this planning effort and feel that this effort to fast-track the completion of this project is not 

realistic, overly-ambitious and that BLM may not be able to complete the efforts outlined in the Planning Direction IM by the 

end of FY 2014.

All Both emc0319GB

1106. Balancing the development of business resources with the protection of local populations of greater sagegrouse and their 

habitat in the planning areas will provide significant benefits to our local communities, the state, and the nation. The Grand 

Junction Area Chamber looks forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the BLM and other stakeholders in this 

planning effort to ensure the balanced use of the resources across the West.

All Both emc0319GB

1107. NWMA supports taking measures to avoid an ESA listing for the greater sage-grouse, but the conservation measures 

proposed by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) in a report entitled "A Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" (December 21, 2011), are draconian and will have severe negative impacts on NWMA 

members, other multipleusers of federal lands, and numerous resource-dependent communities in the ten state area 

covered by this NOI.

All Both emc0321GB

1108. The proposed conservation measures are in direct conflict with the multiple-use mandates for the BLM in the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the USFS in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and the 

Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), and exceed the agencies’ authority under the ESA. In addition, the 

proposed conservation measures are inconsistent with the BLM’s land use planning regulations, and inappropriately discard 

its existing management policies pertaining to candidate species.

All Both emc0321GB

1109. It is essential the BLM and USFS develop a balanced approach to greater sage-grouse conservation that will avoid the negative 

effects such measures will have on multiple-use project proponents and local communities.

All Both emc0321GB

1110. Overwhelmingly, the conservation measures identified in the NTT report focus on limiting or restricting the use of federal 

public lands. The agencies should focus on active management of habitats in a manner that will allow for other land uses. It 

is well-known that fire, not resource development, poses the greatest threat to sage-grouse habitat. BLM Director Robert 

Abbey admitted same in testimony before the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee on March 201, 2012. 

Therefore, fire suppression efforts throughout the habitat range should receive the highest priority. In addition, agencies 

should focus their efforts on supporting what is currently working on the ground rather than solely on "regulatory 

mechanisms."

All Both emc0321GB

1111. We also have concerns about the impact of the proposed conservation measures on our members with mineral resources 

or projects on private lands. BLM’s materials state the conservation measures would be applied regardless of surface 

ownership (emphasis added). For example, see the 12/27/11 press release: human-caused disturbance in priority habitat 

would be limited to less than 2.5% of the species’ total habitat, regardless of surface ownership. It is essential BLM and USFS 

carefully consider the impacts of potential conservation measures on mining and grazing activities, and that both agencies 

develop a balanced approach that will avoid or minimize the socio-economic effects such measures will have on mining, 

grazing, other multiple-use activities and local communities.

All Both emc0321GB

1112. The EIS should include a detailed consideration of the impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. The No Action All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-219

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Alternative analysis must be substantive and not the typical pro forma discussion. BLM already has extensive policy guidelines 

pertaining to the management of listed and special status species. These guidelines are set forth in detail in BLM Manual 6840, 

Special Status Species Management, which was last updated in December 2008. Manual 6840 "establishes policy for 

management of species which are listed or proposed for listing pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." The manual also 

provides guidance for BLM "special status species," a designation that includes candidate species like the greater sage-grouse. 

A No Action Alternative must thoroughly evaluate the existing protections provided from implementing the BLM’s guidance 

found in Manual 6840.

1113. In this case it appears the agencies are assuming the No Action Alternative may lead to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) making a decision to list the greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species. The environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts of that listing must be evaluated and contrasted with the socioeconomic impacts that would occur 

from implementing BLM’s conservation measures (e.g., withdrawing lands with high-priority sagegrouse habitat from mineral 

entry or other uses). A listing would have project-specific impacts, but it would not withdraw lands from mineral entry or 

prohibit mining and other land uses in areas with high-priority habitat. Instead, a listing may require formal consultation 

under section 7 of the ESA, but the consultation would allow for and focus more on conservation measures or mitigation of 

project-specific impacts to ensure a no jeopardy finding.

All Both emc0321GB

1114. There are a number of current federal, state, and local management and conservation measures to improve and protect 

sage-grouse habitat. Many of these have been in effect for a decade or more. The ongoing implementation of these measures 

should be evaluated in the No Action Alternative to provide the baseline against which all other alternatives are compared 

and measured. The EIS documents prepared for each sub-region must include a substantive and detailed analysis of the 

Continuation of Existing Conservation Measures/No Action Alternative. Specifically, this analysis should examine, in addition

to complete or better implementation of Manual 6840, the following potential outcomes that would result from the 

Continuation of Existing Conservation Measures/No Action Alternative:  Analyze the future, long-term habitat 

improvements that could occur with ongoing implementation of the existing greater sage-grouse habitat conservation 

measures in Nevada and elsewhere. o For example, data presented by the Nevada Department of Conservation at 

Governor Sandoval’s January 18th Stakeholder Update Meeting showed that the fall estimated population has been 

increasing since 2007, suggesting that the existing conservation measures are successfully improving sage grouse habitat. o 

This analysis must be reasonably specific on a regional, sub-regional, and even a local scale. The impacts of the No Action 

Alternative " and all other alternatives to be evaluated " may differ from state to state and between each BLM field area 

and/or district office and in each National Forest.

All Both emc0321GB

1115. There are a number of current federal, state, and local management and conservation measures to improve and protect 

sage-grouse habitat. Many of these have been in effect for a decade or more. The ongoing implementation of these measures 

should be evaluated in the No Action Alternative to provide the baseline against which all other alternatives are compared 

and measured. The EIS documents prepared for each sub-region must include a substantive and detailed analysis of the 

Continuation of Existing Conservation Measures/No Action Alternative. Specifically, this analysis should examine, in addition

to complete or better implementation of Manual 6840, the following potential outcomes that would result from the 

Continuation of Existing Conservation Measures/No Action Alternative: Evaluate the No Action Alternative in the context 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-220 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act which requires the Secretary to:"... tak[e] into account those efforts, if any, 

being made by any State or foreign nations, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, 

whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under 

its jurisdiction in his decision whether to list a species.

1116. There are a number of current federal, state, and local management and conservation measures to improve and protect 

sage-grouse habitat. Many of these have been in effect for a decade or more. The ongoing implementation of these measures 

should be evaluated in the No Action Alternative to provide the baseline against which all other alternatives are compared 

and measured. The EIS documents prepared for each sub-region must include a substantive and detailed analysis of the 

Continuation of Existing Conservation Measures/No Action Alternative. Specifically, this analysis should examine, in addition

to complete or better implementation of Manual 6840, the following potential outcomes that would result from the 

Continuation of Existing Conservation Measures/No Action Alternative:  Evaluate the impacts that would occur if the 

USFWS determines to maintain the status quo and either decides to continue the "warranted but precluded" status for the 

greater sagegrouse because there are other higher priority species that need to be listed by 2015, or determines that listing

is not warranted because the existing conservation measures are having sufficient success to make listing unnecessary.

All Both emc0321GB

1117. Data from the western states indicates greater sage-grouse populations have stabilized or increased. As an example, data 

from a Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) presentation indicates the greater sage-grouse population in Nevada has 

been increasing in the last three years. According to NDOW, the 2010 fall population estimate increased about 18% 

compared to the 2009 estimate, and the population has been increasing since 2008. Clearly, BLM’s and NDOW’s existing 

land management/sage-grouse conservation measures - including those outlined in Governor Guinn’s Sage Grouse 

Conservation Plan, are having demonstrated success in restoring sage-grouse habitat, resulting in the observed population 

increase. Therefore, the National Technical Team’s proposed draconian land use restrictions are not warranted in light of 

the increasing population trend and the apparent success of the conservation measures currently in place. The No Action 

Alternative must consider and analyze these and other state and local land management/sage-grouse conservation measures 

and determine whether such locally managed efforts are best suited to preserve and protect the sage-grouse and its habitat.

All Both emc0321GB

1118. II. The EIS Needs to Incorporate the Continuation of Existing Federal, State and Local Management and Conservation 

Measures into the No Action Alternative The ESA provides several examples of the Federal government’s affirmative 

obligation to partner with states in conserving species and their habitat. Section 6(a) states, “[i]n carrying out the program 

authorized by this chapter, the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States. 16 U.S.C. § 

1535(a). Section 4(i) also requires the Secretary to “submit to the State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt 

regulations consistent with the agency’s [state] comments or petition.” 16 U.S.C. § 1533(i). Through these provisions, the 

ESA embodies a policy of collaboration with the States in efforts to protect and conserve species. Section 4(b) of the ESA 

requires the Secretary to consider state and local conservation efforts in making the decision whether to list a species: 

The Secretary shall make determinations required by subsection (a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to him after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those 

efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect 

such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-221

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

any area under its jurisdiction, or on the high seas. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A). The Section 4(b) Determination Factors 

define the issues the Secretary may consider in making the decision whether to list a species as threatened or endangered. 

Because the ESA does not include any different directives concerning candidate species, the Section 4(b) Determination 

Factors also should apply to the Secretary’s management policies for candidate species. The Act’s requirement that the 

Secretary must account for non-Federal conservation activities as a prerequisite to a listing decision is directed at advancing 

the laudable public policy of rewarding robust efforts at species conservation and collaboration. Thus, in the case of the 

greater sage-grouse, a candidate species, BLM’s and USFS’ conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms cannot be 

more restrictive than what would be authorized if the species were later listed as threatened or endangered. It also follows 

that in determining appropriate conservation measures for the sage-grouse - or any candidate species - BLM and USFS must 

use the best scientific and commercial data available and must fully consider existing state and local conservation measures.

1119. Regrettably, the recommendations in the NTT Report do not fully consider the abundant data that suggest the existing 

conservation measures are having significant success in protecting sagegrouse habitat. The 2011 Candidate Notice of Review 

(CNOR) prepared by the USFWS acknowledges this progress: ...many of these habitat impacts are being actively addressed 

through conservation actions taken by local working groups, and State and Federal agencies. Notably, the National Resource 

Conservation Service has committed significant financial and technical resources to address threats to this species on private 

lands through their Sage-grouse Initiative. These efforts, when fully implemented, will potentially provide important 

conservation benefits to the greater sage-grouse and its habitats. (FR v.76, no. 207, page 66393) The recommendations in 

the NTT Report that are the basis for BLM’s and USFS’ Proposed Action as described in IM 2012-044 must be consistent 

with the Section 4(b) Determination Factors in the ESA. Consequently, the EIS documents must include a thorough 

discussion of how the NTT Report conservation measures are based on: 1) the best available scientific and commercial data; 

and 2) take into account the existing state and local conservation measures.

All Both emc0321GB

1120. The Preferred Action that BLM and USFS ultimately selects as a result of this EIS process cannot exceed the Secretary’s 

authority and impose policies that are much more restrictive for a candidate species than policies that would be authorized 

under the ESA for a listed species (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the significant land use restrictions, prohibitions, and 

withdrawals recommended in the NTT Report go far beyond the management policies for listed species. As discussed 

below, BLM Manual 6840 already establishes detailed and effective policies that protect both listed and candidate species 

consistent with the Secretary’s authority under the ESA and balance competing resource values as required by FLPMA. For 

example, Section 1(3) of Manual 6840 pertaining to the administration of listed species authorizes BLM State Directors to 

exclude core habitat areas with resource conflicts from being designated as critical habitat: Where the State Director 

determines that adequate conservation measures are in place, and that the benefits, including economic benefits, of excluding

BLM lands from critical habitat designation exceed the benefits of inclusion of BLM lands, the State Director shall request 

exclusion of BLM lands from the critical habitat designation pursuant to Section 4(b)(2) and/or Section 3(5)A of the ESA. For

proposals across multiple States, the Director will coordinate with the States and submit such information. (BLM Manual 

6840, Section 1(3)) This authority is especially important where habitat is co-located with resources that are geographically 

fixed and cannot be moved, such as mineral deposits. It truly is ironic that the NTT Report proposes land use restrictions, 

prohibitions, and withdrawals for a candidate species that are much more restrictive than BLM’s policies for listed species 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-222 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

(emphasis added). At the very least, BLM’s proposed conservation measures for the sage-grouse should provide a similar 

level of discretion to exempt mineralized areas from the proposed land use restrictions. Moreover, the proposal to 

withdraw lands with high-priority habitat from mineral entry is not supported by any authority under the ESA or FLPMA and 

should not be included as part of BLM’s Preferred Alternative.

1121. Additionally, in the case of a listed species, BLM Manual 6840 Chapter 1(5)(c) requires BLM to identify reasonable and 

prudent alternatives "...that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, can be 

implemented consistent with the scope of the agency’s legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technically 

feasible, and would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat" (emphasis added). This same directive should apply to the

greater sage-grouse and other candidate species. BLM’s sagegrouse conservation measures must accommodate a project 

proponent’s intended purpose and objectives.

All Both emc0321GB

1122. A. Making State-Led Conservation Measures Mandatory and Enforceable Alternative One of BLM’s justifications for the 

recommendations in the NTT Report is that existing regulatory measures to protect and enhance sage-grouse habitat are 

inadequate. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that the myriad federal, state, and local conservation measures in 

place today are having a significant and measurable success in preserving and protecting sagegrouse habitat. Failure to 

accurately credit these state and local conservation efforts will raise the specter pointed to by the U.S. Supreme Court in 

Bennett v. Spear: the obvious purpose of the requirement that each agency "use the best scientific and commercial data 

available" is to ensure that the ESA not be implemented haphazardly, on the basis of speculation or surmise. While this no 

doubt serves to advance the ESA’s overall goal of species preservation, we think it readily apparent that another objective (if 

not indeed the primary one) is to avoid needless economic dislocation produced by agency officials zealously but 

unintelligently pursuing their environmental objectives. 520 U.S. 154, 176-77 (1997) (emphasis added). Accordingly, in light 

of this success, BLM should evaluate an alternative to consider some of the existing state- and local-conservation measures 

"adequate regulatory measures" by encouraging states and local entities to make them enforceable and measureable.

All Both emc0321GB

1123. III. BLM’s and USFS’ Proposed Action Must be Custom-Tailored for Each Region and Sub-Regions It appears from IM 

2012-044 that the conservation measures outlined in the NTT Report will form the basis for BLM’s and USFS’ Proposed 

Action. NWMA is concerned the conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms recommended in the NTT Report 

have been developed mainly in response to studies performed in Wyoming and the effects of oil and gas development on 

sage-grouse habitat in that state. It is well documented that the threats to sage-grouse habitat differ from area to area. 

Habitat fragmentation due to energy development projects appears to be the largest factor in Wyoming and in other 

portions of the Rocky Mountain region. In contrast, there is comparatively little energy development in Nevada and other 

Great Basin region states where habitat fragmentation is mainly due to wildfires and invasive species.

All Both emc0321GB

1124. It is inappropriate to export conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms developed to mitigate impacts due to oil and 

gas development in Wyoming to other states and regions where oil and gas development are not occurring on a broad scale. 

Therefore, BLM’s Proposed Action in the EIS documents must include conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms 

customtailored for the conditions in each region and sub-region. BLM must not propose a one-size-fitsall set of conservation 

measures and regulatory mechanisms that may be suitable in one area of the western U.S., but that will be ineffective and 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-223

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

inappropriate elsewhere. The EIS must therefore evaluate the appropriateness and likely effectiveness of each conservation 

measure and regulatory mechanism in each region and sub-region.

1125. IV. The EIS Needs to Include a Full Range of Alternatives In light of the different reasons for sage-grouse habitat decline 

from region to region, and the fact there remains significant sagebrush habitat throughout the west, the regional EIS 

documents should carefully evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the conservation measures and regulatory 

mechanisms proposed in the NTT Report. Some of the measures recommended in the NTT Report may not be universally 

necessary or achieve optimal results in different states, subregions, and regions. Therefore, each regional EIS document 

should evaluate alternatives that could be implemented in specific sub-regions to address specific issues in each region and 

that have the highest likelihood of success in preserving and enhancing sage-grouse habitat in each region. Examples of such 

alternatives include, but are not limited, to the following: A. The Better Implementation of BLM Manual 6840 Alternative 

BLM already has extensive policy guidelines pertaining to the management of listed and special status species. These 

guidelines are set forth in detail in BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management. Manual 6840 "establishes policy for 

management of species which are listed or proposed for listing pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." The manual also 

provides guidance for BLM "special status species," a designation that includes candidate species like the greater-sage grouse. 

Despite the existence of Manual 6840, it appears that in developing the NTT Report, BLM has completely overlooked the 

policies that are already in place as described in Manual 6840. The NTT Report does not contain a single reference to Manual 

6840 (emphasis added). Before BLM adopts the conservation measures proposed in the NTT Report, including the 

draconian land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals, it must perform a thorough analysis of the regulatory tools 

and policies it already has to protect special status species. This evaluation should document the effectiveness of the existing 

policies described in Manual 6840. BLM should also perform a gap analysis to determine if any of the policies outlined in 

Manual 6840 are insufficient to provide the desired level of protection and what adjustments would be necessary to fill any 

identified gaps. Given the fact BLM already has detailed guidance regarding how special status species are to be protected, 

the following are some alternatives BLM should analyze in the EIS to focus on complete or better implementation of the 

existing regulatory tools and policies contained in Manual 6840: „h The Offsite Mitigation Alternative: Pursuant to Section 

2(C)(8) of Manual 6840 (See Page 38 of the Manual pdf), evaluate an alternative to use offsite mitigation rather than prohibit 

development in habitat areas where alternative project locations do not exist, such as mineral resources that cannot be 

moved and can only be developed where they are located, or resources for which there is no practical or economically 

feasible alternative. „h A Maximum Cooperation with States and Memoranda of Understanding Alternative: Pursuant to 

BLM Manual 6480 Section 1(D) on Page 12 of the pdf and Section 2(D) on Page 38 of the pdf, cooperate ¡§to the maximum 

extent practicable with States, including entering into management agreements and cooperative agreements for the 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. The BLM should implement this section through a State level 

memorandum of understanding¡K¡ ̈ (Manual 6840, Page 12 of pdf). „h Alternatives to implement more fully and capitalize 

upon the authorities and directives in Section 1 of Manual 6840 entitled ¡§Administration of ESA¡ ̈ that provide guidance 

pertaining to listed species but that could have applicability to candidate species including but not limited to the following: o 

A Habitat Exclusion Alternative: Pursuant to BLM Manual 6840, Section 1(3), implement the State Directors¡¦ exclusion 

prerogative for core habitat areas with resource conflicts where such habitat is co-located with resources that are 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-224 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

geographically fixed and cannot be moved such as mineral deposits: Where the State Director determines that adequate 

conservation measures are in place, and that the benefits, including economic benefits, of excluding BLM lands from critical 

habitat designation exceed the benefits of inclusion of BLM lands, the State Director shall request exclusion of BLM lands 

from the critical habitat designation pursuant to Section 4(b)(2) and/or Section 3(5)A of the ESA. For proposals across 

multiple States, the Director will coordinate with the States and submit such information. o A Reasonable and Prudent 

Alternatives Alternative: Pursuant to Section 1 (5)(c) (on Page 22 of the Manual pdf), identify reasonable and prudent 

alternatives ¡§... that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, can be 

implemented consistent with the scope of the agency¡¦s legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technically 

feasible, and would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in the 

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.” (Page 22 of pdf) B. Candidate Conservation Agreement 

with Assurances (CCAA) Alternative C. The No Net Loss of Sage-Grouse Habitat Alternative The EIS documents should 

evaluate a "No Net Loss of Habitat" alternative that allows impacts in high-priority sage-grouse habitat areas so long as the 

project proponent mitigates these impacts through onsite or offsite habitat enhancement measures. D. The Better 

Predator Control Alternative For regions and sub-regions where predation is a major factor affecting sage-grouse 

populations, the EIS should evaluate a Better Predator Control Alternative to assess the impacts that would be associated 

with implementing more effective predator control measures. E. The Accelerated Fire Restoration Alternative Wildfire 

and non-native invasive species are the primary threats to sage-grouse habitat. BLM and USFS efforts should focus on 

addressing these causes of habitat diminution. The agencies must analyze the need for more aggressive fire suppression and 

invasive species elimination policies on maintaining and improving sage-grouse habitat. For regions and sub-regions where 

recent fires have compromised sage-grouse habitat, the EIS should evaluate an Accelerated Fire Restoration Alternative that 

assesses the impacts associated with implementing better-funded and more effective fire restoration measures. F. The 

Improved Fuels Management and Fire Suppression Alternative The EIS should evaluate the impacts associated with more 

effective and better-funded fuels management measures and fire suppression measures when wild fires do occur. G. The 

Better Non-Native and Invasive Species Eradication and Control Alternative The EIS should evaluate the impacts 

associated with better funded and more effective programs to eradicate and control the growth of invasive and non-native 

species that impede the reestablishment and growth of sagebrush vegetation ecosystems that provide sage-grouse habitat. 

H. The Private-Sector Conservation Incentives Alternative The EIS should evaluate ways to create incentives for more 

private-sector investment in sagegrouse habitat conservation measures. This alternative could include the establishment of 

a Greater-Sage Grouse Mitigation Grant Program that encourages project proponents, conservationists, and other 

stakeholders to make financial contributions that can be distributed to local communities and federal, state, and local 

agencies to implement qualified habitat restoration and enhancement plans. I. The Fire Suppression and Locatable Minerals 

Best Management Practices (BMP’s) Alternative The EIS should consider and analyze the locatable minerals and fire 

suppression BMP’s listed in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively, of the NTT report within the context of the existing 

regulatory framework. J. All of the alternatives, including those listed above, in the EIS must: • Allow for habitat mitigation, 

including concurrent post project habitat mitigation; • Evaluate the cumulative socioeconomic impacts of all alternatives; • 

Evaluate the ability to construct and operate on permanent and temporary roads; • Evaluate travel restrictions in habitat 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-225

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

areas; • Address mining claims and mineral leases in all types of habitat; • Evaluate impacts of fences; • Address the impact of 

surface and ground water use and development; • Address ponds, impoundments and pit lakes in all habitat types; • Address 

electrical transmission lines in all habitat types; • Address pipelines both above and below the ground; • Address drill pads in 

all habitat types; • Analyze the cost of validity exams and the cost of regulatory takings if lands are withdrawn from mineral 

entry; • Analyze the role diseases, parasites and predators play in maintaining viable sage-grouse populations • Carefully 

structure use of seasonal restrictions. • Provide the greatest degree of flexibility.

1126. V. The limit in the NTT report on the percent of land that can be disturbed is unsupported, arbitrary and will have a dramatic 

adverse impact on multiple-use activities. In that context, questions that must be addressed in the EIS include: • Who is 

defining disturbance, and how is disturbance defined? Agencies must fully explain, document and support how percentage of 

disturbance limitations were determined. • How is habitat defined? • How are populations defined? Furthermore, every 

effort should be made to ensure activities such as mining and grazing can coexist with the sage-grouse, versus total exclusion.

All Both emc0321GB

1127. VII. The EIS Must Analyze Impacts to Interference with Expectation-Backed Investments Many NWMA members have 

made substantial investments in developing their patented claims, unpatented claims, fee lands, and associated ROW grant 

applications for existing and proposed exploration and mining projects throughout the west. These investments have been 

made in reliance upon the multiple-use principles mandated in FLPMA and on the land uses authorized in current 

LUPs/Resource Management Plans (RMP’s) and Forest Land Management Plans (LMP’s). Many of the conservation 

measures and regulatory mechanisms recommended in the NTT Report could substantially interfere with these investments. 

In light of the potential for this interference, the EIS must: • Quantify how these measures could interfere with 

expectation-backed investments; • Evaluate ways to minimize interference with the investment-backed expectations of 

project proponents; and • Discuss and quantify the potential impact to U.S. taxpayers as a result of the regulatory takings 

claims that could arise in response to implementing the land use restrictions and withdrawals recommended in the NTT 

Report at projects where these measures interfere with substantial investments.

All Both emc0321GB

1128. All alternatives must acknowledge that RMP’s and LMP’s cannot legally effect a mineral withdrawal. Only Congress or the 

Secretary of Interior pursuant to FLPMA §204 may withdraw lands from mineral entry. The BLM and the USFS have 

numerous tools in their respective “tool boxes” to protect the environment, prevent unnecessary or undue degradation, 

minimize or mitigate adverse environmental impacts, address cultural resource and threatened and endangered species 

issues and ensure compliance with all applicable Federal and state environmental laws and regulations. While a mineral 

withdrawal is one of those tools, it is, or at least should be, the tool of last resort. A mineral withdrawal is an extreme action 

and should be considered and used only when all other tools have failed (emphasis added). In light of the numerous 

sage-grouse conservation measures currently in place in the western states, we submit a mineral withdrawal is wholly 

unnecessary.

All Both emc0321GB

1129. IX. The Proposed Amendment of the RMPs Solely for the Purpose of Incorporating the Proposed Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures/Land Use Restrictions Do Not Comply with BLM’s Land Use Planning Regulation Regulation and are 

Based on Instruction Memoranda that Essentially Function as Rules not Promulgated Pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedure Act. As stated in Section 1601.0-2 (Objectives) of the BLM’s planning regulations: The objective of resource 

management planning by the Bureau of Land Management is to maximize resource values for the public through a rational, 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-226 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

consistently applied set of regulations and procedures which promote the concept of multiple use management and ensure 

participation by the public, state and local governments, Indian tribes and appropriate Federal agencies. Resource 

management plans are designed to guide and control future management actions and the development of subsequent, more 

detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses. Furthermore, in Section 1601.0-8 (Principles), the regulations 

state: The development, approval, maintenance, amendment and revision of resource management plans will provide for 

public involvement and shall be consistent with the principles described in section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976. Additionally, the impact on local economies and uses of adjacent or nearby non-Federal lands and 

on non-public land surface over federally-owned mineral interests shall be considered (emphasis added). Consequently, in 

accordance with their planning regulations, the BLM should not be amending RMP’s solely for the purpose of incorporating 

sage-grouse conservation measures and, when they do, they must consider the impact on local economies. Additionally, it 

is not clear that directives to the RMP amendment process can be lawfully driven under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA). Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044 declares that “The conservation measures developed by the NTT ...must 

be considered and analyzed, as appropriate, through the land use planning process by all BLM State and Field Offices that 

contain occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.” Under the APA, an agency that intends to promulgate a legislative rule 

must first provide the public with notice of, and an opportunity to comment upon, a proposed version of the rule. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 553. Congress, however, created exemptions to these notice-and-comment requirements for “interpretive rules, general 

statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” Id. § 553(b)(A). The APA also relieves agencies 

of the obligation to provide for notice and comment “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and 

a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). Courts in numerous circuits have consistently instructed 

that these exemptions to the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements are to be “narrowly construed.” See, e.g., Flagstaff 

Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sullivan, 962 F.2d 879, 885-86 (9th Cir. 1992); N. Am. Coal Corp. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. 

Programs, 854 F.2d 386, 388 (10th Cir. 1988); N. Mariana Islands v. United States, 686 F. Supp. 2d 7, 14-15 (D.D.C. 2009). 

The Instruction Memoranda may be justified as simple policy statements and hence, able to avoid the APA’s 

notice-and-comment requirements in issuing it. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). The critical factor to determine whether a 

directive announcing a new policy constitutes a rule or a general statement of policy is the extent to which the challenged 

directive leaves the agency, or its implementing official, free to exercise discretion to follow, or not to follow, the announced 

policy in an individual case. Mada-Luna v. Fitzpatrick, 813 F.2d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 1987). The clear directional mandates 

set forth in Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044 to utilize the NTT conservation measures in the RMP process do not 

provide a level of decision making discretion that would lend a clear justification of the IM as mere policy. Accordingly, the 

legitimacy of the IM as a cornerstone of agency land use planning in this instance it is not readily apparent.

1130. X. The EIS Needs to Present a Comprehensive Population Trend Analysis for the Greater Sage-Grouse and a Habitat Model 

that Evaluates the Existing Condition, Quality, and Quantity of Available Habitat Many efforts to identify sage-grouse 

habitat have incorporated “broad brush” analyses that do not appear to include adequate site-specific field verification. For 

example, the mere presence of intact sagebrush-dominated vegetation alone is not a sufficient indicator of sage-grouse 

habitat. Moreover, historic range is not an appropriate measure for identifying current sage-grouse habitat or distribution. 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-227

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

BLM and USFS must provide a definitive range-wide assessment of sagegrouse populations and habitats.

1131. XI. The EIS Needs to Fully Disclose the Nature and Evaluate the Adequacy of the Baseline Data Used to Support the Analysis 

in the EIS Is the baseline data used to develop alternatives adequate? EIS’s should include an analysis of the baseline data to 

support each alternative.

All Both emc0321GB

1132. B. Regional and Sub-regional Baseline Data • Sage-grouse populations are not static and the dataset proposed to be used to 

support the EIS’s represents a snapshot in time and does not account for natural population fluctuations. The Proposed 

Action or conservation measures developed should include adaptive management tools to be able to adjust according to 

population and habitat variations over time. • It appears that the baseline data collection methodology used to characterize 

sage-grouse habitat within the various states and even within different districts within individual states are variable. This 

creates an inaccurate dataset that skews habitat quality classifications across the range of the sage-grouse. For example, an 

area classified as high quality habitat in Idaho when compared to an area classified as high quality habitat in Nevada would not 

have the same functionality. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to apply broad-scale habitat conservation measures that do 

not take into consideration the variability of the dataset being used. It is recommended that conservation measures 

proposed take into consideration the statistical discrepancies resulting from the data collection methodology.

All Both emc0321GB

1133. XII. The EIS Needs to Clearly Describe Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Characterization and Analyze how the existing and 

proposed Long-term Conservation Measures Relate to Existing Habitat and Future Habitat Models

All Both emc0321GB

1134. XIII. The Agencies Need to Evaluate NEPA Documents Completed in the Past Five Years to Document What is Already 

Being Required as Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures

All Both emc0321GB

1135. XIV. The Development of the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team Report is Inconsistent with the Provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Places into Question its Role in Policymaking and this EIS Process. It is 

unclear of the role of the findings and report of the NTT in the NEPA process. The EIS should address the report and detail 

its role in the development of the BLM’s Instructional Memoranda as well as the overall NEPA process and RMP/LMP 

modifications for sage-grouse. The scientific basis for the report and management policies should be provided and made 

publicly available including methodologies used and scientific literature considered. Many of the potential conservation 

measures contained in the report do not provide viable, defensible or even legal means of protecting sage-grouse habitat and 

will have dramatic adverse effects on multiple use activities on public and National Forest System lands. The conservation 

measures must focus on management, which will continue to allow existing land uses along with new uses.

All Both emc0321GB

1136. XV. Mitigation Measures in the EIS A. The EIS should include preliminary mitigation measures that could be put in place to 

prevent the listing of the greater sage-grouse, including the development of a Candidate Conservation Agreement with 

Assurances (CCAA). Mining companies already incorporate mitigation measures into their plans of operation to minimize 

and avoid impacts to greater sage-grouse. These mitigation measures illustrate the extent and effectiveness of the agencies’ 

existing regulatory tools to compel project proponents to design their projects to avoid or mitigate impacts to greater 

sage-grouse wherever possible. Examples of mitigation measures include: Burying transmission lines and water pipelines.

Installation of anti-perching devices. Low-profile design and location of permanent equipment. Installation of 

noise-reducing enclosures or sound barrier walls near active leks. Minimization of surface disturbance. Seasonal 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-228 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

restrictions from March 1 – May 31. B. A variety of onsite and offsite mitigation options should be considered, including:

Vegetation planting, vegetation rehabilitation and thinning to provide for ecologically diverse habitat with an appropriate mix 

of successional types based on the Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD’s) prepared by the USDA Natural Resource 

conservation Service; Rehabilitation of areas impacted by fire, non-native invasive species or other disturbance to establish 

appropriate successional species, such as perennial grasses and forbs, and eventually big sagebrush communities;

Enhancement of existing sage-grouse habitat to provide an appropriate mix of vegetation types to support the life history 

needs of sage-grouse; Use of conservation easements or other land-use covenants to provide habitat protection; and Use 

of “mitigation funds” or “mitigation banks” that would provide for pooling of mitigation monies to implement larger habitat 

protection and improvement measures. Such funds could be managed by appropriate wildlife agencies or third parties. Such 

approaches must be provided in an appropriate alternative and/or as components of alternatives considered in the EIS’s. In 

addition, EIS’s must take into consideration the lack of suitable private lands for mitigation purposes, especially in high 

percentage public land/National Forest states like Nevada and Idaho.

1137. XVI. BLM and USFS Must Analyze Each Alternative for its Impacts on Small Businesses and Small Governmental Entities as 

Required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (SBREFA).

All Both emc0321GB

1138. Summary of NWMA Scoping Comments Thoroughly Evaluate the No Action Alternative The EIS should include a 

detailed consideration of the impacts associated with the No Action Alternative. The ongoing implementation of current 

federal, state and local conservation measures should be evaluated as the No Action Alternative to provide the baseline 

against which all other alternatives are compared and measured. The ESA Requires Consideration of State and Local 

Conservation Efforts in Making a Listing Decision. The EIS must include a thorough discussion of how the NTT Report 

conservation measures are based on 1) the best available scientific and commercial data and 2) take into account the existing

state and local conservation measures Proposed Action Must be Custom-Tailored for Each Region and Sub-Regions The 

Proposed Action must include conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms custom-tailored for the conditions in each 

region and sub-region. The agencies must not propose a one-size-fits-all set of conservation measures. The EIS Needs to 

Include a Full Range of Alternatives The EIS should carefully evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the conservation 

measures and regulatory mechanisms proposed in the NTT Report Better Implementation of BLM Manual 6840  BLM 

already has extensive policy guidelines pertaining to the management of listed and special status species. There is an 

implementation issue – not an absence of adequate or appropriate regulatory mechanisms. Minimize Adversely Affecting 

Private Property Rights The EIS must evaluate ways to minimize interfering with private property rights – including the 

rights associated with owning patented mining claims and fee mineral estates. Minimize Interference with 

Expectation-Backed Investments The EIS must quantify how the proposed conservation measures could interfere with 

expectation-backed investments and evaluate ways to minimize impacts to project proponents. All alternatives also must 

acknowledge that RMP’s and LMP’s cannot legally effect a mineral withdrawal Conservation Measures and Regulatory 

Mechanisms Must be Consistent with FLPMA. FLPMA is premised on the overarching principle to use a balanced approach 

in managing the public lands. The EIS must evaluate whether and how the conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms 

recommended in the NTT Report achieve the required balance. BLM Must Comply with Land Use Planning Regulations In 

accordance with their planning regulations, BLM should not amend RMP’s solely for the purpose of incorporating 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-229

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse conservation measures. When they amend RMP’s, the BLM must consider the impact on local economies. Fully 

Disclose the Nature and Evaluate the Adequacy of the Baseline Data Is the baseline data used to develop alternatives 

adequate? The EIS should include an analysis of the baseline date to support each alternative. Mitigation Measures Must be 

Considered and Analyzed The EIS should include preliminary mitigation measures that could be put in place to prevent the 

listing of the sage-grouse. A variety of onsite and offsite mitigation options should be considered. All Alternatives Must be 

Analyzed for their Small Business Impacts Each alternative must be analyzed for its impacts on small businesses and small 

governmental entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1139. NWMA supports taking measures to avoid an ESA listing for the greater sage-grouse, but the conservation measures 

proposed by the Sage-grouse National Technical Team are draconian and will have severe negative impacts on NWMA 

members, other multiple-users of federal lands, and numerous resource-dependent communities in the western United 

States. The BLM and Forest Service must develop a balanced approach that will avoid or minimize the socio-economic effects 

of such measures. We urge the agencies to give full consideration to existing federal, state and local conservation measures, 

analyze a full range of alternatives in the EIS and develop a proposed action that is custom-tailored for each region and 

sub-region. Finally, in providing these comments, we wish to incorporate the comments of the National Mining Association 

and the Nevada Mining Association as if they were fully set forth herein.

All Both emc0321GB

1140. It is vital to continue existing land-use, levels of use, and ongoing management and put the burden of proof on specialists or 

outside agencies or advocates proposing changes to ongoing management or use to have site-specific information on 

problems or threats to sage-grouse populations, use patterns, migration, or habitat that is very specific, substantial and 

objective. Subjective judgments should be secondary to ongoing activities and management and should only trigger 

evaluations concerning site-specific monitoring.

All Both emc0323GB

1141. Any EIS or SEIS developed must also recognize and incorporate the extensive documentation that has already been 

conducted by NRCS and ecological research by the Agricultural Research Service on the complimentary relationship 

between sage-grouse conservation and grazing.

All Both emc0323GB

1142. On March 9,2012, just 14 days before the March 23,2012 deadline for submitting these comments, BLM and USFS finally 

made a new sage-grouse habitat map for Nevada available to the public. The map entitled ''Nevada BLM and USFS Greater 

Sage-Grouse Preliminary Habitat Map" shows extensive areas in magenta that are labeled "Preliminary Priority Habitat" and 

other areas in blue-green labeled "Preliminary General Habitat." This map is based on a map that the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife ("NDOW") prepared and recently released entitled, ''Nevada Department of Wildlife Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Categorization Map." BLM's press release announcing the availability of the BLM - USFS map states that the map will be 

used to ". . . provide infonnation for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy ... [and] ... Used in the development of 

alternatives to be considered in the CaliforniaNevada Environmental Impact Study process to amend the BLM Resource 

Management Plans and USFS plans." Based on our members' extensive experience in making maps using GIS data and 

interpreting and using satellite imagery data, NVMRA fmds that the data that NDOW used to make the maps are completely 

inadequate for developing a map upon which important policy decisions will be based. NVMRA members are concerned 

that BLM and USFS will ultimately be using this map to make critically important decisions about how public lands in Nevada 

will be managed that will affect individual, specific projects. The data used to develop this map must be appropriate for the 

All Both emc0327GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-230 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

scale of land use decisions that will be made in the amendments to the RMPs.

1143. We appreciate the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the issues to be addressed in the National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Our primary recommendation is that the agencies 

designate large, contiguous tracts of prime sage-grouse habitat that are set aside from development or protected via 

stringent management protections that meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing populations in these areas.

All Both emc0329GB

1144. Greater sage-grouse are dependent on large areas of contiguous sagebrush, and large-scale characteristics within 

surrounding landscapes influence sage-grouse habitat selection.3 As such, the key to meeting the goals of the National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is preserving large tracts of habitat in a condition ideal for sage-grouse survival and 

proliferation. The agencies should inventory all sage-grouse habitat, identify the most important habitat areas, and impose 

varying levels of protection for these habitats, depending on their classification.

All Both emc0329GB

1145. To achieve the goal of maintaining and increasing sage‐grouse abundance and distribution, all aspects of the National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Planning Policy must be supported by the most recent compilation of scientific information and management 

recommendations. The following reports and documents provide a solid, scientific background on the current status of the 

greater sage-grouse and important biologically-based guidance on sage-grouse management. The agencies should 

incorporate the information and recommendations from these reports wherever possible. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered, 75 FR 13910 (Mar. 23, 2010) BLM Sage‐grouse National 

Technical Team, A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures (Dec. 21, 2011) USGS-sponsored 

Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, published as a scientific monograph 

in the series Studies in Avian Biology Wyoming Sage-Grouse Core Areas Strategy. See Wyoming Executive Order 2008-2 

(Aug. 1, 2008); BLM IM 2010-012 (Jan. 4, 2010); Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 (June 2, 2011).

All Both emc0329GB

1146. The BLM and FS should prepare a comprehensive inventory of sage-grouse habitat and existing sagegrouse populations using 

the most current data available. The agencies should make certain that the full suite of habitat requirements is incorporated

into this habitat inventory. At the largest scale, the habitat inventory should identify and map all lands currently used by 

greater sage-grouse at all life stages and throughout the year, including transitional habitats. The population inventory should 

verify the number of remaining sage-grouse and determine sustainable population levels, and should identify areas occupied 

by high concentrations of sage-grouse, which will assist the agencies in delineating high-value habitats. The BLM and FS 

should build upon existing state-level inventory and mapping data. Many state mapping efforts are works-in-progress and will 

require the agencies to work collaboratively with state agencies. For example, many mapping models focus breeding habitat 

to delineate core habitat because lek data is more available than nesting or corridor information. Lek data is collected 

through sampling that is prone to variability, and only identifies habitat use during a short period of the year. Furthermore, 

there is great need for more research to adequately identify and delineate transitional habitats. Regional maps should include 

the most recent information from local working groups, telemetry studies, and state agency modeling of seasonal habitat and 

movement corridors. Any mapping method must be supported by the current best available science, combined with 

scientifically defensible research and methods to estimate population density. We encourage BLM's continued involvement 

All Both emc0329GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-231

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in order to expedite the process to complete work on mapping and other conservation tools, while ensuring that maps are 

scientifically defensible. The sage-grouse habitat inventory should include at least two categories of habitat: priority habitat 

and general habitat. The BLM-fs National Technical Team (NTT) has defined priority habitat as -gareas thathave the highest 

conservation value to maintaining or increasing sage-grouse populations. These priority areas should include breeding, late 

brood-rearing, winter concentration areas, and migration or connectivity corridors. The remaining sage-grouse habitat, or 

general sage-grouse habitat, includes occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat. Priority habitat 

should be set-aside from development or protected via stringent management protections that meet the goal of maintaining 

and enhancing populations in these areas. These protected areas should be large enough to stabilize populations in the short 

term and enhance populations over the long term.6 Priority habitat should also include small or isolated populations, such as

those along the periphery of the greater sage-grouse’s range.

1147. Sage-grouse conservation guidance from BLM should reflect the most current science on sage-grouse transitional habitat, 

such as migration or connectivity corridors necessary for sage-grouse to travel through the landscape to vital seasonal 

habitat. Sage-grouse movement patterns are poorly understood,7 and, as such, transitional habitat is not adequately 

recognized and incorporated into current sagegrouse conservation and management. For instance, the interim guidance 

released by BLM in December 20118 does little to provide guidelines for the preservation or inventory of important 

sagegrouse transition habitat and many state-level planning efforts have not adequately incorporated transitional habitat into 

conservation efforts. But it is clear that migration corridors and habitat connectivity (including movement across 

jurisdictional boundaries) will play an essential role in successful conservation strategies. The agencies should create 

management policies that will protect areas that may likely serve as transitional habitat due to the proximity of these areas 

to highly productive habitat and lek sites.

All Both emc0329GB

1148. The BLM and FS should strongly consider closing large areas in important sage-grouse habitat to anthropogenic disturbance. 

In the event that development occurs in sage-grouse habitat, the agencies are legally required to apply mitigation to lessen 

impacts on the species.

All Both emc0329GB

1149. The BLM and FS should establish baseline protections for priority and general habitat and these measures should be 

incorporated into each alternative (except the no action alternative) considered in the Regional EISs. These protections will

differ based upon the local sage-grouse populations and the cumulative threats on the landscape. The NTT’s 

recommendations should be used as a starting point for achieving effective conservation in priority habitats. The agencies 

should strive to implement them to the fullest extent possible as range-wide standards in each RMP and LMP, while refining 

them further to better address specific issues consistent with the most recent science. As the agencies establish 

management guidelines for sage-grouse habitat, they should apply the BLM’s habitat mitigation policy, codified at 43 C.F.R. § 

1508.20. This policy lists habitat mitigation actions in descending order of preference: avoidance, minimization, rectification, 

reduction, and compensation. As the agencies engage in the difficult act of balancing development with conservation of 

sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species, they must keep in mind this mitigation hierarchy and consider “avoidance” 

the foremost objective, especially in sage-grouse priority habitat.

All Both emc0329GB

1150. Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat follow. Implement range management practices 

outlined by the NTT, with improvements, including avoiding new range and water developments that negatively impact 

All Both emc0329GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-232 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse and applying the 3% disturbance cap to certain range developments.

1151. Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat follow. Ensure disturbance or uses permitted 

adjacent to priority habitat don’t negatively impact sagegrouse populations in priority habitat,9 thus negating the value of 

designated priority habitats. Require off-site mitigation for impacts that cannot be mitigated on-site, or where landscape 

approaches to mitigation offer opportunities to address conservation needs on a larger scale while generating net 

conservation benefits for sage-grouse. Off-site mitigation should be required to take place in the same eco-region as the 

project site. Land uses, habitat treatments, and anthropogenic disturbances will need to be managed below thresholds 

necessary to conserve not only local sage-grouse populations, but also sagebrush communities and landscapes.

All Both emc0329GB

1152. Wherever possible, priority habitat should be set-aside from development or protected via stringent management 

protocols, especially where it is not subject to valid existing rights. Both the BLM and the FS have existing mechanisms for 

designating lands like sage-grouse priority habitat that have biologically valuable characteristics and are in need of special 

management attention. By identifying priority sage-grouse habitats and developing prescriptions for their maintenance and 

improvement, the agencies will have taken a critical step forward as a means of achieving the goal of maintaining and 

enhancing greater sage-grouse populations.

All Both emc0329GB

1153. We recommend the following criteria be used to identify and designate priority habitats for the purpose of conserving 

greater sage-grouse. Areas of high biological value, with respect to meeting all seasonal habitat needs, should be identified 

and considered for priority habitat designation. To inform this effort, the agencies should refer to on-going state efforts to 

identify important sage-grouse habitat (such as Wyoming’s Core Areas approach), as well as data provided in the BLM report 

Mapping breeding densities of greater sage-grouse: A tool for range-wide conservation planning.10 Prioritize habitat 

conservation in relatively large contiguous areas that are: 1) within areas of high biological value; 2) currently undeveloped; 

and 3) unencumbered by valid existing rights, and/or have low potential for development (e.g., low wind or oil and gas 

potential).11 These areas, where high biological value intersects with low energy development potential, are low conflict 

area sage-grouse habitat conservation. Consider priority habitat designation in high biological value areas that, although 

encumbered by valid existing rights, are not yet developed. This may be particularly feasible where actual development 

potential is low despite the existence of valid existing rights (e.g., due to speculative leasing in areas of low energy potential). 

It may also be feasible in areas where other constraints (e.g., lack of infrastructure, other resource conflicts) will make 

development relatively difficult and costly. Management in such areas could include aggressive pursuit of available tools to 

increase the amount of protected habitat, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary grazing permit retirement 

(where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts. Including these areas as priority 

habitats is vital because 44% of areas with high biological value are at risk for energy development, and one-third of the 25% 

core areas have been leased for oil and gas development.12 Consider prioritizing areas that meet the previous criteria and 

are near high biological value areas that are likely to be developed in order to promote resilience of populations disturbed 

by development. Consider including relatively large contiguous areas of lower biological value areas that currently are 

undeveloped, are unencumbered by valid existing rights, or have low potential for development. This may be important 

when such areas increase the size and continuity of the areas described above, or where there are limited areas that meet 

the previous criteria.13 Once the above areas have been mapped, work to maximize the spatial continuity and size of 

All Both emc0329GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-233

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

designated priority habitats. BLM should consider for designation areas that have already been proposed for sage-grouse 

conservation and are under consideration as part of RMP revision.14

1154. Sage-grouse populations are dependent upon healthy sagebrush ecosystems. Reclaiming or recovering sagebrush habitats is 

extremely challenging. The BLM and FS should direct efforts toward improving our ability to effectively reclaim degraded 

habitat, which requires gathering site-specific baseline (pretreatment) data to adequately evaluate success. Reclamation 

should be a mandatory stipulation for all development in sage-grouse habitat and managers must recognize that methods for 

achieving success vary by region and are site-specific. Reclamation efforts should be monitored and results maintained in a 

single database to improve public understanding and effectiveness of efforts. The agencies should establish a process to 

identify and address failed reclamation projects.

All Both emc0329GB

1155. Implementation of an effective monitoring and adaptive management process with performance based standards for each 

RMP and LMP is critical to the success of this national sage-grouse planning strategy. In addition to developing management 

prescriptions for sage-grouse, plans should establish triggers and thresholds for adaptive management throughout the range. 

Consequences that will result if triggers or thresholds are reached must be clearly outlined. Triggers could include 

sage-grouse population target ranges, target levels of survival and recruitment in particular areas, measures of the cumulative 

level of surface disturbance, and well densities in core areas. Consequences that would result if triggers are reached would 

include increases in protective measures. Monitoring should be required and adequately funded.

All Both emc0329GB

1156. BLM and FS leadership, in committing to range-wide planning based on sound science, is greatly appreciated. While federal 

land managers are central to the greater sage-grouse conservation effort, the success of efforts to sustain and increase 

sage-grouse populations will also depend on management strategies and conservation efforts on state and private lands 

within the bird’s range. In addition, protecting migration corridors and maintaining habitat connectivity across jurisdictional 

boundaries will play an essential role in successful conservation strategies. As such, the BLM and FS will need the support of 

many other agencies and stakeholders to achieve success. These include USFWS, state fish and game agencies, tribes, 

conservation and wildlife groups, private landowners, industry partners and federal permittees, and elected officials at all 

levels across the region. We are committed to working constructively with responsible officials towards policies designed to 

maximize the chances for successful long-term conservation of the species and its habitat. State fish and game agencies are 

already developing policies to conserve remaining sage-grouse habitat, protect existing populations, obtain crucial scientific 

information, and develop maps to inform protective policies. Wyoming Game & Fish Department has exhibited leadership in 

the development of Wyoming’s Core Areas Strategy and associated sage-grouse distribution and habitat maps. State wildlife 

areas will play an important role in sage-grouse conservation, and management of these areas must be integrated with 

policies on adjacent federal or private lands. We urge the BLM and FS to work with the state wildlife agencies to develop 

common understanding and nomenclature for sage-grouse habitats so that state and federal wildlife managers and the public 

are describing the same habitats using the same terms.

All Both emc0329GB

1157. As the BLM and FS proceed with regional conservation efforts, an open and transparent process is fundamentally important. 

The agencies should maintain a publicly available consolidated clearinghouse of essential data and information, including all

state-level priority and general habitat data and maps, as well as any other high-level mapping and modeling information that 

facilitates public involvement in these planning processes and allows stakeholders to evaluate proposed conservation 

All Both emc0329GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-234 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

measures. Failure to make such information publicly available undermines the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),15 

and failure to address this issue could undercut the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy by preventing 

stakeholders from constructively engaging in this process.

1158. Finally, the BLM and FS should ensure that all geospatial data and modeling information used to develop sage-grouse 

conservation measures be made publicly available. Such information includes, but is not limited to: Seasonal habitats beyond 

breeding areas (i.e., winter concentration areas); Complimentary delineations of priority habitats across state borders; 

Important corridors and transition habitat, including those that might not be identified on state maps; Valid existing federal 

mineral lease rights, including oil and gas, other leasable minerals, and locatable minerals; and Other valid existing rights 

(e.g., rights-of-way)

All Both emc0329GB

1159. For nearly a decade, concerns about dwindling numbers of sage grouse and erosion of its habitat have driven significant 

conservation efforts across the Western United States. Federal agencies, states, localities, industry, landowners, community 

groups and others have invested substantial resources in protecting sage grouse and sage grouse habitat through mandatory 

and voluntary programs. The common goal of these efforts is to preclude a formal listing of the bird under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The goal is commendable since listing is accompanied by often onerous requirements and restrictions on 

commercial activities. NMA supports the efforts of the BLM to take measures to preclude a listing. However, as BLM moves 

forward with the preparation of its EIS to incorporate conservation measures into its resource management plans (RMPs) 

and Forest Service land and resource management plans (LMPs), the agency must be vigilant to ensure that the "cure" is not 

worse than the "disease." In other words, if the conservation measures adopted are so stringent, society may be better off 

with a listing due to the safe harbor and incidental take provisions of the ESA.

All Both emc0331GB

1160. Multiple Use Mandate Both the major federal land management agencies engaged in developing the EIS, BLM and the Forest 

Service, have a statutory-based multiple use mandate that recognizes public lands are an important source of minerals. • 

BlM's Multiple Use Mandate Section 302 of the Federal land Policy and Management Act (FlPMA) provides that "[t]he 

Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield." 42 U.S.C. § 1732(a). 

Furthermore, FlPMA requires management of the public lands "in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic 

sources of minerals." 43 U.S.C. § 1701 (11 )-(12). Similarly, BlM's 2006 Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy highlights the 

importance of mining on public lands and endorses "multiple use" as a guiding principle for land use management. The policy 

states BlM land use planning and multiple use management decisions will recognize that, with few exceptions, mineral 

exploration and development can occur concurrently or sequentially with other resource uses and further indicates that the 

least restrictive stipulations that effectively accomplish the resource objectives or uses will be used. See BlM 2006 policy at 

p. 2 • Forest Service's Multiple Use Mandate Congress established the national forest system through the OrganiC 

Administration Act of 1897, 30 Stat. 11 (June 4, 1897). By operation of the Transfer Act of 1905, 33 Stat 628 (February 1, 

1905), stewardship of the national forests was transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of 

Agriculture. There followed over the ensuing decades a series of enactments in which Congress consistently and clearly 

specified that stewardship over the national forests would be guided by the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, i.e., 

the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C.§§ 528-31 (MUSYA); the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974,16 U.S.C. §§1600-14; and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et 

All Both emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-235

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

seq. These statutes consistently endorse multiple use and sustained yield. Specifically, section 4 of the MUYSA defines 

"multiple use" as: the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are 

utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land 

for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic 

adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the 

resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment 

of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not 

necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 16 U.S.C. § 531 . As 

appropriately concluded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Forest Service does not have the 

discretion to ignore that mandate to focus solely on environmental and recreational resources. That court held, "the national 

forests, unlike national parks, are not wholly dedicated to recreational and environmental values." Cronin v. United States 

Department of Agriculture, 919 F.2d 439, 444 (7th Cir. 1990).

1161. BlM Instruction Memoranda BlM issued two instruction memoranda (IMs) to its field offices regarding interim conservation 

policies and consideration of the recommendations of the Sage Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) in its "Report on 

National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures" (Dec. 21, 2011). See IM-2012-043, BLM Greater Sage Grouse 

Interim Management Policies and Procedures and IM-2012-044, BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning 

Strategy. NMA is troubled by several aspects of the IMs and has significant concerns about the legality of the NTT 

recommendations that BlM should consider in the development of the EIS.

All BLM emc0331GB

1162. • IM 2012-043 o Designation of Preliminary Priority or Preliminary General Habitat Areas The IM defines preliminary 

priority habitat areas as those that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable

greater sage grouse populations, and include breeding, late brood-rearing and winter concentration areas. While the 1M 

states that these areas have been identified by BlM in coordination with state wildlife agencies, the public has had little or no 

input into the process of designating such areas. Furthermore, accurate maps that identify key habitat areas have not been 

provided. The January 10, 2012 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies habitat map, delineating these designated 

habitat areas, was used during the IM roll-out meetings at BlM offices. However, subsequent discussions with state and field 

office staff have determined that those delineations are already being significantly modified by state wildlife agencies. It is 

difficult for us to determine potential impacts or issues appropriate for scoping when the extent of the area is unknown. BlM 

must provide better maps identifying the designations as well as ensuring that designations are based on clear criteria and 

sound biological data. Many efforts to identify sage grouse habitat have incorporated "broad brush" analyses that do not 

appear to include adequate site specific field verification. For example, the mere presence of intact sagebrush habitat alone

is not a sufficient indication of sage grouse habitat. Moreover, historic range is not an appropriate measure for identifying

current sage grouse habitat or distribution. Some of the area currently mapped by the Nevada Department of Wildlife is 

occupied by cheatgrass and other non-native invasive annual species, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and salt desert shrub 

vegetation. These areas do not provide suitable sage grouse habitat, and thus do not warrant habitat designation. 

Accordingly, it is essential that any sage grouse habitat designations be based on clear criteria and sound biological data. 

Broad, over-inclusive geographic designations are inappropriate and may have substantial adverse effects on multiple use 

All Both emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-236 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

activities on federal lands while providing no benefits to the species. BlM should ensure that project proponents have an 

opportunity to confirm the habitat designations based on site specific information at the time specific actions or projects are 

proposed. If site specific information (Le. The best scientific information available) demonstrates that previously designated 

habitat does not meet the criteria for general or priority habitat, then adjustments to those habitat boundaries and/or 

designations are appropriate and must be made by BlM without the need for a formal lMP or RMP amendment.

1163. • IM-2012-044 and the NIT Recommendations IM-2012-044 provides direction to BlM offices for considering conservation 

measures identified in the NTT Report through the land use planning process. The IM specifically requires consideration of 

all applicable conservation measures when revising RMPs in sage grouse habitat. As discussed below, NMA believes some of 

the measures recommended by the NTT Report represent draconian methods that are oft-times contrary to existing 

statutes and regulations, ill-advised and unnecessary to adequately protect the sage grouse. The IM indicates that the 

implementation of any of the NTT conservation measures must be consistent with applicable statutes and regulations and 

that if inconsistencies arise, BlM should consider conservation measures to the fullest extent with such statutes and 

regulations. Rather than having BlM staff on the ground trying to determine the legality of the NTT recommendations, the 

NTT report should be thoroughly reviewed by the Interior Solicitor's Office and the Forest Service's General Counsel's 

office for a determination of their legality. While the NTT may have the best intentions, their recommendations cannot be 

allowed to trump the law.

All BLM emc0331GB

1164. o Arbitrary Limits on Anthropogenic Disturbances The most objectionable recommendation in this report is the 

suggestion that BLM must: "Manage priority sage-grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less 

than 3% of total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership .... [and if that threshold is exceeded then] no further 

anthropogenic disturbances will be permitted .. " This is not only unnecessary and unacceptable but is contrary to law. The 

report makes this statement under the false assumption that anthropogenic disturbances are automatically detrimental to 

sage grouse and their habitat. NMA also strongly disagrees with the report's statement that "surface-disturbing energy or 

mineral development within priority sage-grouse habitats is not consistent with a goal to maintain or increase populations or 

distribution." The NTT report's conclusion quoted above flies in the face of statements made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, which recognizes that there are a number of existing regulatory mechanisms designed to successfully protect and 

mitigate impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat during the planning, leasing, permitting, operation, and reclamation of surface 

coal mining operations. When asked if permitting pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) is 

adequate to protect sage grouse in core areas in Wyoming, the FWS said: The provisions for conservation of Federal trust 

species, including candidates such as the Greater Sage Grouse, under SMCRA and its implementing regulations, are sufficient 

for conservation of the species." FWS Letter to Wyoming Governor's Office (Nov. 10, 2010) at p. 2. This sentiment was 

echoed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, which very recently observed that: "Over the last 15 years ... the 

average number or males at leks has increased in Wyoming indicating an increasing statewide population.,,4 Sage grouse 

use of reclaimed plant communities providing summer foraging and broodrearing habitat has been documented at one of 

Peabody Energy's Powder River Operations. Moreover, reclamation requirements include the re-establishment of sagebrush 

on surface coal mined lands in Wyoming.

All BLM emc0331GB

1165. In 2001, Peabody Energy's Powder River Operation's North Antelope Rochelle Mine (NARM) voluntarily initiated and All BLM emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-237

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

funded a project designed to gather data on the status of Greater Sage Grouse populations using habitat in and adjacent to 

the mine area. The immediate goal of this ongoing study was to identify key habitats (nesting, brooding and wintering) so that 

the mine could adequately plan reclamation and/or mitigation strategies for this species. Second, vegetative data was 

collected to evaluate the quality of the available habitat. Third, reproductive data (nest fate, clutch size, chick survival and 

adult survival) was collected. Fourth, use of reclaimed mine lands was monitored. (Of particular note was the documented 

use of reclaimed lands at the initiating mine by hens and broods. The reclamation used by these grouse supported a diverse 

and prominent (>25% cover) mosaic of forbs). The monitoring program initiated by this mine was expanded to neighboring 

mines and funded in 2003 through the Wyoming Abandoned Coal Mine Lands Research Program (ACMLRP) - (Brown and 

Clayton 2004). Today, NARM is continuing to manage and fund the project on a voluntary basis and has incorporated and 

expanded it into a broad landscape-wide sage grouse collaring and sagebrush mapping research project in partnership with 

the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service. Notable 

conclusions as of the 2011 report (compiled 11 years of results) include: • "Hen nest success, overall survival, and mortality 

sources (mainly predation) at NARM appear to be comparable to those documented in other populations (Connelly et al. 

2000)." "Nest initiation rates at NARM have remained similar in the previous years, and are comparable to or greater than 

those reported for most other studies (63 to 93%; Connelly et al. 1991, Schroeder 1997). Likewise, overall nest success (at 

least 59%) from 2001 through 2008 at NARM has been well within the typical range for sage·grouse (30 to 60%; Schroeder 

et al. 1999) and exceeded that (50%) reported by Lyon and Anderson (2003) for both disturbed and undisturbed areas." • 

"Lyon and Anderson (2003) also found that sage·grouse nested farther from leks in areas that were affected by oil and gas 

development than in undisturbed areas, but that trend has not been supported in the NARM study area. Those authors 

reported that only 26% of nests were within 1.9 miles of a lek in disturbed areas, whereas 91 % of nests were within that 

distance in undisturbed areas. In contrast, the documented nest site at NARM (a 'disturbed area') in 2011 was approximately 

0.3 mile from the nearest lek and 88% of the nests in the initial 3·year study were within 1.9 miles of an active lek (Brown and 

Clayton 2004)." These are just a few examples of why conservation measures that involve automatic prohibitions on uses 

of public lands are inappropriate and unjustified as applied to the mining industry.

1166. o Data Does Not Support NTT Recommendations Data on sage grouse populations and impacts does not support the 

NTT report recommendations with respect to mining. For example, the NTT report suggests that: "large scale disturbances 

that impact sage grouse distribution and abundance at any level will not be permitted within priority areas." Yet, BLM's own 

scoping materials5 (prepared by FWS) distributed in January·February 2012 lists hard rock mining 16th out of 19 threats to 

the greater sage grouse, just above "hunting." Hunting has been found to be such an insignificant threat that it is not even 

recommended that it be prohibited [it is noteworthy that "climate change" is rated as an even lower threat than hunting].

BLM should focus on the largest risks to sage grouse such as invasive species and fire. Focusing on conservation measures 

that address these types of impacts, will provide a beneficial option whereby sage grouse habitat would be protected without 

substantial adverse impacts on economically productive activities.

All BLM emc0331GB

1167. o Best Management Practices The NTT report contains appendices outlining best management practices (BMPs) for 

certain activities conducted in sage grouse habitat, including locatable mineral development. While NMA supports the use of 

scientifically based BMPs, they should not be "mandatory." By their very nature, BMPs should be a guide on how to best 

All Both emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-238 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

protect the species and its habitat, but making them mandatory stifles innovation and is contrary to the nature and tradition 

of using BMPs.

1168. Procedural Violations Regarding the IMs and NTT Report In addition to the substantive issues with the agency's actions, 

there are a number of serious procedural problems with BlM's actions. First, BlM's adoption of the interim management 

policies and procedures constitute rulemaking that should have been subject to the procedural requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. Under the APA, rules include "the whole or part of an agency statement of general or 

particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the 

organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency." The IMs clearly fit this definition, and are clearly designed 

to implement policy. The IMs also use mandatory language. 1M 2012-044 states that: ''The BlM must consider all applicable 

conservation measures ... " 1M 2012-043 also imposes mandatory substantive requirements, such as when it mandates the 

following: "Require that new notices and plans of operation include measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects to 

Greater Sage Grouse populations and its habitat." Since the IMs are rules, BlM must follow the requirements of the APA, 

including publication in the Federal Register and providing the public with an opportunity to submit written comments 

before the agency implements these new policies. BlM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not taking 

a hard look at the environmental consequences of its IMs before implementing them.9 BlM prepared neither an 

environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement to analyze the impacts of the IMs. This is despite the fact 

that the agency admitted in both IMs that they " ... will result in additional costs for coordination, NEPA review, planning, 

implementation, and monitoring." BlM also neglected to examine the effect of its policies on small businesses and 

governments as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The 

RFA requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to determine whether the agency's proposal 

will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the agency's new polices should 

have been proposed as rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, BlM should have also prepared an IRFA for this rule. 

The agency's omission under the RFA is not harmless error. There are many small entities in the mining industry-over 90% 

of mining companies are considered small entities under the RFA and its implementing regulations. In addition, since the 

agency's policies will result in significant restrictions (impacts) on the use of public lands, we believe that failure to perform 

and IRFA is reversible error on the part of the agency.1O Finally, BlM failed to comply with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) in establishing the National Technical Team. The NTT was an advisory committee that was 

"established" by BlM for the specific purpose of providing advice and recommendations to the agency on conservation 

measures and management approaches for the greater sage grouse. BlM conceived of the team, selected the membership of 

the team, and managed the team. Therefore, the team was "established" by BlM under the statute. Alternatively, even if the 

team was not deemed "established" by BlM, it was clearly "utilized" by the agency. An advisory committee is defined as any 

group that is "established or utilized by one or more agencies." An advisory committee is utilized if it is amenable to strict 

management by agency officials. FACA imposes a number of requirements on advisory committees that BlM failed to follow, 

including establishing the team as a matter of formal record in the Federal Register, providing a notice of its meetings, and 

ensuring that the advisory committee was fairly balanced in representing the viewpoints of non-governmental interests. 

Since BlM failed to comply with the FACA, the NTT findings and conclusions cannot be used to support agency 

All BLM emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-239

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

decision-making.11

1169. • The BlM Conservation Measures Should Not be Stricter than the Wyoming Plan The BLM IM creates an exemption from 

its conservation policies for states that have developed a local regulatory mechanism for sage grouse conservation approved 

by FWS, including the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order 2011-5 Greater Sage Grouse Core Area Protection. Yet 

without explanation, the BlM's policies are much stricter than the plan in Wyoming, which is considered acceptable. For 

example, the Wyoming plan limits surface disturbance on up to 5% of suitable sage grouse habitat (and further allows 

exceptions on a case-by-case basis),12 whereas the BlM limits human disturbances to only 2.5 % of priority habitat areas 13, 

and even suggests that no disturbance will be allowed at all for "large scale disturbances" (which presumably would include 

mining).14 BlM must provide a detailed analysis and explanation as to why its proposed conservation measures are so 

much stricter than the ones it approves of in Wyoming. Further, there is no justification or explanation for the 3% 

disturbance threshold, and additionally no explanation for why BlM's press release refers to a 2.5 % disturbance threshold, 

which is not even mentioned in the NIT report. BlM must explain both of these thresholds, and justify why they are 

attempting to impose them on the public.

All BLM emc0331GB

1170. • BlM Should Recognize State and Independent Grass-roots Efforts BlM needs to provide more recognition of all of the 

things that are being done in the Western states to conserve sage grouse and their habitat. For example, the Western 

Governors Association (WGA) issued a report15 in Dec. 2011 cataloging efforts that have been initiated to help conserve 

the greater sage grouse and its habitat. The report found eight states identified local working groups as functional 

conservation organizations having conservation plans in place and conducting conservation efforts. It also listed initiatives in 

Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah. All 11 states reported having conservation plans for the sage grouse, and the report 

notes that the Natural Resources Conservation Service has committed over $110 million in fiscal year 2010- 2011 for sage 

grouse conservation. Utah implemented a sage grouse management plan in 2009. In its report, it notes that an estimated 11 

% of sage grouse are found in that state,16 and that the total number of males counted has gradually increased since 1996. 

The report suggests that this could either be the result of a greater effort to count, search, and incorporate more leks into 

the database, but also says that it is equally likely that populations are increasing due to management efforts.17 

Considerable grass-roots conservation initiatives have been independently developed and/or implemented for greater 

sage-grouse. Some of these are part of Candidate Conservation Agreements or Candidate Conservation Agreements with 

Assurances that are in place or being developed. The IMs should clearly delineate that where specific conservation measures 

have been developed that are pertinent to greater sage-grouse that those will take precedence over any conservation 

measures developed as a result of these Ims.

All BLM emc0331GB

1171. While NMA agrees with BlM's goal of implementing conservation measures to assist in increasing sage grouse populations 

and expanding their habitat, and thus avoiding listing under the ESA, the agency's proposals have gone too far. In many cases, 

the recommendations in the NTI report are contrary to law and regulation. In addition, they fail to adequately consider the 

robust existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures currently being implemented throughout the West. The 

conservation measures contained in the agency's policies are generally too restrictive, and appear to be unsupported by 

sound science. In addition, the agency's singular focus on protecting sage grouse and its habitat above all other considerations 

appears in some cases to exceed even the requirements of the ESA itself.

All BLM emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-240 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1172. Eureka Moly is providing these comments in response to BLM's request for public comments in conjunction with the scoping 

process for the above referenced Notice of Intent. As described below, Eureka Moly has developed an extensive 

Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan to minimize and avoid impacts to greater sage-grouse at the Mount Hope Project. As this 

mitigation plan demonstrates, Eureka Moly fully embraces site-specific conservation measures to protect the species and its 

habitat. We feel that implementation of similar conservation measures at other projects throughout the west would provide 

substantial protection to greater sage-grouse. The sage-grouse mitigation measures Eureka Moly is proposing for the Mount 

Hope Project illustrate the extent and effectiveness of BLM's existing regulatory tools to compel project proponents to 

design their projects to avoid impacts to greater sage-grouse wherever possible and mitigate impacts where avoidance is 

impractical or impossible. In light of these existing regulatory tool s, General Moly is concerned about the nature and extent 

of the conservation measures proposed in IM-201 2-044, "BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy" 

and the December 2011 National Technical Team Report entitled, A Report on National Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures ("the NTT Report"). Rather than taking a projectby- project and site-specific approach to avoiding and mitigating 

impacts, like those planned for the Mount Hope Project, the NTT Report proposes large-scale and unprecedented land use

restrictions and prohibitions - including the withdrawal of lands with high-priority sage grouse habitat from mineral entry. As 

described below, Eureka Moly believes this approach is unwarranted and overreaches to the extent that it exceeds BLM' s 

statutory authorities defined under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. We also believe that 1M 2012-044 

and the NTT Report as policy disregard BLM's existing policies to protect candidate species, including the policies mandated

in BLM Manual 6840, "Special Status Species Management."

All BLM emc0335GB

1173. Policy Issues that Must be Evaluated in the EIS A. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 In enacting the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA"), 43 USC § 1701 et seq in 1976, Congress directed the Secretary ofthe 

Interior to consider a broad range of resource issues, land characteristics, and public needs and values in determining how 

public lands should be managed. FLPMA directs BLM to manage public lands for multiple uses and to consider a wide range 

of resource values - including the need to protect wildlife - in the context of the Nation's needs for minerals, energy, food, 

fiber, and other natural resources. FLPMA, Section 102(a)(7) establishes multiple use and sustained yield land management

directives and requires the Secretary to develop: " ... goals and objectives [that are 1 established by law as guidelines for 

public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified 

by law" (U.S.C. 1701 (a)(7)) In defining the term "multiple use" FLPMA § I 03( c) directs the Secretary to ensure: " ... the 

management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best 

meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or alI of these 

resources ... to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than alI of the resources; a 

combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for

renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife 

and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values." (43 U.S.C § l702(c)). Therefore, under the multiple use and 

sustained yield requirements, BLM must strike an appropriate balance between potentialIy competing interests and land 

management objectives. This balance is to be achieved in the Section 102 land use planning process and the resulting

Resource Management Plans ("RMPs"). FLPMA does not authorize the subordination of any of these uses in preference for 

All Both emc0335GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-241

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

a single land use such as sage-grouse habitat conservation. The EIS must evaluate how the land use restrictions, prohibitions, 

and withdrawals recommended in the NTT Report achieve the required balance in managing the public lands.

1174. IM 2012 - 043 asserts that "Maintaining and restoring high quality habitat for the Greater SageGrouse is consistent with the 

BLM multiple-use and sustained-yield management direction of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act". Eureka Moly 

contends that the land use restrictions and prohibitions - especially the proposed withdrawal of high-priority sage-grouse 

habitat areas from mineral entry are not consistent with FLPMA's multiple use mandate or the specific directive pertaining to 

minerals in FLPMA § 102(a)(l2): " ... the public lands [shalI] be managed in a manner that recognizes the Nation's need for

domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including the implementation of the Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act of 1970 [at] 30 U.S.C. 2Ia ... " (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(l2))

All Both emc0335GB

1175. Eureka Moly Scoping Issue No.1: Demonstrate Compliance with FLPMA - Each ElS document should discuss how the 

conservation measures in the Proposed Action, each Alternative Considered in Detail, and the Agency Preferred Alternative 

comply with the FLPMA mandate to balance a wide range of resource values and uses of public lands and the directive in the 

Mining and Minerals Policy Act at 43 U.S.c. 1701(a)(12) to recognize the Nation 's need for domestic sources of minerals.

All Both emc0335GB

1176. The Habitat Maps Must Meet Data Adequacy Standards that can Support a NEPA Analysis On March 9, 2012, BLM and USFS 

made a new set of sage-grouse habitat maps available to the public. The map entitled "Nevada BLM and USFS Greater 

Sage-Grouse Preliminary Habitat Map" shows extensive areas in magenta that are labeled "Preliminary Priority Habitat" and 

other areas in blue-green labeled "Preliminary General Habitat." The press release announcing the availability of this map 

states that the map will be used to " ... provide information for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy . .. [and) .. . used 

in the development of alternatives to be considered in the California-Nevada Environmental Impact Study process to amend 

the BLM Resource Management Plans and USFS plans." The habitat map was prepared largely from old (circa 2001- 2005) 

satellite imagery data rather than fr0111 on-the-ground sage-grouse habitat mapping. Thus, the accuracy and adequacy of the

baseline data to support the contemplated NEPA analysis seem insufficient. In any NEPA document, the reliability and 

completeness of the baseline data used to define the Affected Environment is a critical component of the analysis. Faulty or 

incomplete baseline data will undennine all other elements of an EIS - especially the Environmental Consequences analysis

and the Alternatives to be considered. • Eureka Moly Scoping Issue No.3: Improve, Update, and Verify the Baseline Data 

Used to Prepare the Habitat Maps - BLM must use more current satellite imagery data to prepare the habitat maps and 

conduct field surveys to verify that the maps are accurate.

All Both emc0335GB

1177. Continuation of Existing Management and Conservation Measures - (The No Action Alternative) - Must Be Thoroughly 

Evaluated The continuation of existing management and conservation measures and existing regulatory policies including the 

directives in BLM Manual 6840 define the No Action Alternative. As is the case for all NEPA documents, the No Action 

Alternative provides the baseline against which all other alternatives must be compared and measured. The No Action 

Alternative analysis in each sub-regional EIS should quantify the impacts associated with ongoing implementation of the many 

existing local, state, and federal conservation measures and the existing BLM and USFS policies to protect sage-grouse 

habitat. Some of the impacts that could result from continuation of the existing regulatory framework and conservation 

measures that should be evaluated in the EIS documents include the following: The impacts that would occur if the USFWS 

detennines to maintain the status quo and continue the Warranted but Precluded, candidate species status, or detennine 

All Both emc0335GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-242 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

that the greater sage-grouse should not be listed;

1178. Continuation of Existing Management and Conservation Measures - (The No Action Alternative) - Must Be Thoroughly 

Evaluated The continuation of existing management and conservation measures and existing regulatory policies including the 

directives in BLM Manual 6840 define the No Action Alternative. As is the case for all NEPA documents, the No Action 

Alternative provides the baseline against which all other alternatives must be compared and measured. The No Action 

Alternative analysis in each sub-regional EIS should quantify the impacts associated with ongoing implementation of the many 

existing local, state, and federal conservation measures and the existing BLM and USFS policies to protect sage-grouse 

habitat. Some of the impacts that could result from continuation of the existing regulatory framework and conservation 

measures that should be evaluated in the EIS documents include the following: The possibility that the USFWS will list the 

greater sage-grouse despite the conservation measures that BLM and USFS develop in conjunction with this EIS process.

All Both emc0335GB

1179. BLM's and USFS' Proposed Action Must be Tailored for Each Region and SubRegion Eureka Moly is concerned that the 

conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms recommended in the NTT Report have been developed mainly in 

response to studies perfonned in Wyoming and the effects of oil and gas development on sage-grouse habitat in that state. 

It is well documented that the threats to sage-grouse habitat differ from area to area. Habitat fragmentation due to energy 

development projects appears to be the largest factor in Wyoming and in other portions of the Rocky Mountain region. In 

contrast, there is comparatively little energy development in Nevada and other Great Basin region states where habitat 

fragmentation is mainly due to wildfires and invasive species. It is inappropriate to export conservation measures and 

regulatory mechanisms developed to mitigate impacts due to oil and gas development in Wyoming to other regions where 

oil and gas development are not occurring on a broad scale. Therefore, RMP revisions should include conservation measures 

and regulatory mechanisms that are tailored to the conditions in each region and sub-region. A one-size-fits-all set of 

conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms will be less effective in achieving the desired protection of the greater 

sage grouse. • Eureka Moly Scoping Issue No.5: Propose Conservation Measures Appropriate for Each Sub-Region - The 

Agency Preferred Alternative for each sub-regional EIS document must have conservation measures that are

custom-tailored for each sub-region and not one-size-fits all measures that may be suitable for one sub-region but not 

optimal for other sub-regions.

All Both emc0335GB

1180. VI. BLM and USFS Must Evaluate a Reasonable Range of Alternatives In light ofthe different reasons for sage-grouse habitat 

decline from region to region, and the fact that there remains significant sagebrush habitat in Wyoming and Nevada, each 

sub-regional EIS should carefully evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the conservation measures and regulatory 

mechanisms proposed in the NTT Report. Some of the contemplated measures may not be necessary or effective in each 

region or sub-region. Examples of such alternatives include, but are not limited, to the following: The Off-Site Mitigation No 

Net Loss of Sage-Grouse Habitat Alternative The EIS documents should evaluate an "Off-Site Mitigation/No Net Loss of 

Habitat Alternative" that allows impacts in high-priority sage grouse habitat areas so long as the project proponent mitigates 

these impacts through on-site of off-s ite habitat enhancement measures. Such an alternative is consistent with BLM Manual 

6840 Chapter 2©(8) which emphasizes impact mitigation rather than prohibiting development in habitat areas. Preserving a 

regulatory fi'amework that emphasizes mitigation rather than prohibits project development is especially important to 

mineral exploration and development projects because mineral resources cannot be moved and can only be explored and 

All Both emc0335GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-243

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

developed where they are located. It will be especially important to evaluate the socioeconomic impacts of an off-site 

mitigation alternative versus the extensive land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals recommended in the NTT 

Report.

1181. VI. BLM and USFS Must Evaluate a Reasonable Range of Alternatives In light ofthe different reasons for sage-grouse habitat 

decline from region to region, and the fact that there remains significant sagebrush habitat in Wyoming and Nevada, each 

sub-regional EIS should carefully evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the conservation measures and regulatory 

mechanisms proposed in the NTT Report. Some of the contemplated measures may not be necessary or effective in each 

region or sub-region. Examples of such alternatives include, but are not limited, to the following: The State Implementation 

Alternative The December 2011 Western Governors' Wildlife Council ("WGWC") Report to Governors entitled 

"Inventory of Local and State Governments' Conservation Initiatives for Sage Grouse" documents the many state- and 

local-level sage-grouse conservation measures in place throughout the western U.S. and offers the following observations 

and findings: "This inventory report provides a catalogue of management approaches implemented by state and local 

authorities, as well as by local prutnerships committed to on-the-ground action to conserve sage-grouse and their habitat... 

This inventory demonstrates that sage-grouse habitat protection is active at state, regional and county levels. The data 

analysis indicates that state fish and wildlife agencies are rightly viewed as the primary authority for sage-grouse

conservation, yet significant efforts are also being implemented under local government land use planning authorities. 

Partnerships through LWGs appear to enhance awareness of activities across the range of authority - from local, state and 

federal governments to private landowners. These partnerships are excellent examples which demonstrate the 

opportunities both state and local governments have for sage grouse conservation given their management authority." 

(WGWC Report, page 7). As noted above, at least in Nevada, the observed increase in population levels since 2007 strongly 

suggests that the state and local conservation measures are having a positive impact. Consistent with the finding in the 

WGWC's Report that conservation measures are best implemented by state and local authorities, the EIS should evaluate an 

alternative wherein these prograJllS are left intact and provided additional resources to pursue habitat conservation

opportunities.

All Both emc0335GB

1182. VI. BLM and USFS Must Evaluate a Reasonable Range of Alternatives In light ofthe different reasons for sage-grouse habitat 

decline from region to region, and the fact that there remains significant sagebrush habitat in Wyoming and Nevada, each 

sub-regional EIS should carefully evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the conservation measures and regulatory 

mechanisms proposed in the NTT Report. Some of the contemplated measures may not be necessary or effective in each 

region or sub-region. Examples of such alternatives include, but are not limited, to the following: The Plivate-Sector 

Conservation Incentives Altemative The EIS should evaluate impacts and effectiveness of programs that could create 

incentives for more private-sector investment in sage-grouse habitat conservation measures. Such programs could 

encourage project proponents, conservationists, and other stakeholders to make financial contributions that can be 

distributed to local communities, federal, state, and local agencies to implement qualified habitat restoration and 

enhancement plans. These incentives could comprise a viable altemative that should be analyzed.

All Both emc0335GB

1183. Eureka Moly Scoping Issue No.6: Evaluate a Broad Range of Alternatives - Each sub-regional EIS document should evaluate a 

broad range of conservation measures and land management policies as alternatives to the land use restrictions, prohibitions, 

All Both emc0335GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-244 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and withdrawals proposed in the NTT Report.

1184. IX. Conclusions Eureka Moly fully supports all reasonable efforts on the federal, state, and local levels to protect and enhance 

greater sage-grouse habitat. The significant commitment of resources in the Mount Hope Sage-Grouse Mitigation Plan 

clearly indicates that Eureka Moly embraces sage-grouse habitat protection. However, the land use restrictions, prohibitions, 

and withdrawals in the NTT Report go too far. The NTT Report, 1M 2012-043, and 1M 2012-044 conflate the Secretary's 

withdrawal authority under FLPMA with species protection authorities under the ESA. The Secretary must not use FLPMA 

Section 204 withdrawal authorities to implement land use restrictions and withdrawals to achieve ESA objectives. 

Additionally, BLM must not use concerns that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may decide in 2015 that the greater 

sage-grouse should be listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA as justification for imposing 

unprecedented land use restrictions that conflict with FLPMA's multiple use mandates

All BLM emc0335GB

1185. Finally, the point must be made that it is essential and critical that the federal government maintain their responsibility 

throughout the duration of process that may well go beyond the initial EIS. Oregon’s ranchers have been litigated against and

had their businesses near collapse because the prospect of not being able to turn out because the federal government has 

neglected year after year to do the monitoring necessary to diffuse such litigation. When the federal government fails to do 

its job the people to suffer the consequences are the producer, their families and businesses. While the recent examples of 

litigation revolve around salmon there is no reasonable reason not to expect that the same wouldn’t eventually with the 

sage-grouse.

All Both emc0341GB

1186. The current conservation strategies adopted by BLM fail to account for the gaps in the science, the data deficiencies, and 

questions regarding the mathematical accuracy of both the estimates of historic populations and current populations of sage 

grouse. Any future changes need to be sufficiently flexible to adjust for better data and analysis, especially given the significant 

issues regarding which land uses affect sage grouse populations and other factors affecting the sage grouse populations that 

are omitted entirely from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

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

Endangered, 75 Fed. Reg. 13910 (2010). The BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2012-44 and Attachment 1, “A Report on

National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures” (Dec. 21, 2011) (Technical Team Report) do not address these 

issues and the land use planning process must;

All BLM emc0371GB

1187. BLM must coordinate with local governments on all land decisions, 43 U.S.C. §1712(a) and must ensure to the extent 

practicable that any land use plans do not contradict those of local governments. Id. at §1712(c)(9). CLG calls on BLM to 

begin this coordination. There are a number of state and local government sage grouse management initiatives. For example, 

Moffat County, Colorado, developed a sage grouse management plan for state, private and federal lands. Utah and its local 

governments were in the forefront of habitat improvements and research. These efforts are ignored in IM- 44, the Technical

Team Report and the NOI. BLM is required by law to closely coordinate with state and local government agencies to ensure 

that the federal actions do not conflict. Notably, BLM failed to coordinate in the development of IM-2012-43, 2012-44, or the 

Attachments, including “A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures” (Dec. 21, 2011) (Technical

Team Report). This omission is significant because many state and local governments have been very active in improving sage

All BLM emc0371GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-245

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

grouse habitat and have more direct hands on experience than many of the team members. Coordination would have 

improved the conservation measures, avoided errors, and restored public faith in the process. As it stands, the report 

appears to be a purely political exercise intended to disrupt the local economies and social structures in the Rocky Mountain 

and Great Basin states. For example, Utah local governments pioneered wildlife habitat work in the late 1990s, funded it and 

promoted habitat improvement projects. The Wyoming conservation districts have been equally active. And yet the IM and 

Technical Team Report ignored the work of these local agencies notwithstanding FLPMA’s mandate to coordinate.

1188. FLPMA requires BLM to manage the public lands in accordance with the land use plans that have been properly adopted. 43 

U.S.C. §1732(a). Much of IM 2012-44 and the Technical Team Report contradict the lawfully adopted RMPs. Implementation 

of an IM to amend an RMP is unlawful. Given both the lack of coordination and opportunity for public comment, and the 

scientific controversies, adoption of the IMs without following FLPMA procedures is flawed from the outset. Even interim 

implementation of the IM will have significant and adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts.

All BLM emc0371GB

1189. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) rules require federal agencies to address and document areas of scientific 

controversy. 40 C.F.R. §§1503.4, 1502.9(b); 1508.27. There is ample scientific dispute with respect to most aspects of the 

Technical Team Report and the IM, including historic range of the sage grouse, sage grouse population estimates, impacts on 

sage grouse numbers, including predators, hunting, and diseases, like West Nile Virus, impacts, if any, of livestock grazing, and 

impacts of development. These issues and others have been raised and yet BLM fails to address them or even acknowledge 

the scientific debates. The IMs do not acknowledge contrary viewpoints, research or data. See e.g. Thresholds of Energy 

Development and Greater Sage-grouse Populations, Harju, Taylor, Dzialak, Clark, Hayden-Wing, and Winstead 2010; Oil 

and Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus Urophasianus): a Review of Threats and Mitigation 

Measures, Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat 2011. The Colorado Division of Wildlife also assessed the basis for the USFWS 

listing but warranted decision and prepared a detailed critical review. These reports and other works need to be considered 

especially since the universe of sage grouse research is very incestuous and does not meet the professional standard for peer 

review. Science or Advocacy? Ecology and Conservation of Greater Sage- Grouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats 

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY (Feb. 1, 2012) (CESAR) pp. 2-7.

All BLM emc0371GB

1190. CLG agrees that monitoring is an important strategy. All BLM emc0371GB

1191. There have been substantial efforts to manage for increased Greater Sage Grouse (GSG) populations in the recent past. If 

the purpose is to increase GSG populations, the reasonable course of action would be to adopt practices that have been 

shown to work. Many of the current practices appear to be ineffective according to USFWS analysis. Therefore, these 

practices should not be expanded, but instead replaced by practices that have been shown to increase GSG populations in 

the past. There are 3 issues to be addressed: • Current GSG populations meet the USFWS criteria to preclude listing. • GSG 

populations are not in drastic decline, but are returning to levels more in line with the long-term norm for their habitat. •

Conservation measures should be in line with data. Alternatives with less drastic impact than those proposed in recent GSG 

conservation plans should be implemented. Action plans should be based on plans with previous success, not on plans that 

have been shown to be ineffective.

All Both emc0381GB

1192. Data from state wildlife management agencies, state departments of agriculture, university extension services and local All Both emc0376GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-246 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse working groups should be used to the greatest extent possible in this effort.

1193. The Uintah County general plan addresses threatened, endangered and sensitive species, recovery plans and related 

guidelines and protocols. Uintah County's position is that "these designations or reintroductions often grow beyond 

boundaries and scope, and result in detrimental effects on the area economy, life styles, culture and heritage. No such 

designations or reintroductions should be made until it is determined and substantiated by verified scientific data that there 

is a need for such action, that protections cannot be provided by other methods and the area in question is truly unique 

when compared to other area lands. Designation or reintroduction plans, guidelines, and protocols must not be developed 

or implemented without the full involvement of the County and full public disclosure. Any analysis of such proposed 

designations or reintroductions must be inclusive and analyze all needed actions associated with the proposal to prevent 

growth beyond the scope and boundaries that were analyzed in the proposal. Recovery plans must provide for indicators to

track the effectiveness of the plan and identify at what point recovery is accomplished.

All Both emc0376GB

1194. We request that the land use plan amendments be single-purpose; limited solely to those associated with sage-grouse habitat 

conservation.

All Both emc0376GB

1195. Work group members request that the Draft EIS clearly define the maps as dynamic documents that allow for change as 

habitat and sage-grouse populations change through time.

All Both fxc0003RM

1196. The Work Group also recommends that the BLM/USFS include a mechanism for local stakeholder review in determining the 

most important priority habitat for each individual population.

All Both fxc0003RM

1197. The Work Group also requests that the draft EIS specifically allow agency staff to ground-truth project areas within PPH to 

insure that areas to be analyzed for sage-grouse are actually within sage-grouse habitat.

All Both fxc0003RM

1198. We further request that the BLM/USFS allow for site evaluation of projects and allow agency staff to make informed 

decisions based on professional judgement rather than be dictated by rules from Washington, DC.

All Both fxc0003RM

1199. The NESRSGWG requests that the BLM better define what eactly would be included as an anthropogenic disturbance to be

included in the 3% disturbance analysis. The NTT report discusses grazing as a diffuse disturbance that can even have an 

effect over broad spatial and temporal scales. Will grazing disturbance be included in the 3% disturbance measurement and 

if so, how will it be measured? Please also define the scale at which the 3% disturbance threshold will be measured. Will it be 

at the field office scale or at a section scale? The report mentions both scales, which scale will take precedence? Please also 

specifically define when an anthropogenic disturbance will no longer be included in the 3% disturbance threshold 

measurement. What specific reclamation requirements must be met for an anthropogenic action to be considered suitable 

sage-grouse habitat and its disturbance footprint removed from the 3% disturbance measurement.

All Both fxc0003RM

1200. The NESRSGWG requests that the Draft EIS clarify how consistency across the BLM Field Offices will be achieved. Will 

every BLM field office in sage-grouse range in Colorado be required to implement the same conservation actions for greater 

sage-grouse? This may be counterproductive when the primary issues affecting sage-grouse vary across sage-grouse range in 

Colorado. The NESRSGWG requests that the BLM recognize and analyze the variability of habitat issues across sage-grouse 

range in Colorado. A 'one-size-fits-all' approach may not be the most effective approach for sage-grouse conservation in 

Colorado.

All Both fxc0003RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-247

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1201. We have reviewed the Preliminary Planning Criteria for the National Greater Sage-Grouse Strategy, dated January 2012 and 

offer the following comments: The criteria to utilize state game and fish agency data and expertise should be expanded to 

state that the RMP amendments will recognize the State's responsibility and authority to manage wildlife and consider 

adoption of the State sage-grouse plan for use on BLM and Forest lands as an alternative.

All Both emc0376GB

1202. The BLM should consider the efforts of local sage-grouse working groups and site specific research in making plans for 

specific areas.

All BLM emc0376GB

1203. The plan amendments should contain clear definitions of terms and an explanation of how preliminary priority habitat and 

preliminary general habitat locations were determined.

All Both emc0376GB

1204. The RMP amendments should include flexibility or exemptions for emergency circumstances. All Both emc0376GB

1205. Inflexible standards should be avoided. Standards should be based on the recommendations of the local sage-grouse working 

groups.

All Both emc0376GB

1206. The BLM should consider methods of incentivizing development outside of priority habitat areas. All BLM emc0376GB

1207. Time of day and seasonal restrictions should be based on local conditions as analyzed by local sage-grouse working groups, 

agriculture officials and wildlife agenctes.

All BLM emc0376GB

1208. Land uses that do not conflict with sage-grouse management should not be restricted. One example is underground mining 

of oil shale or other natural resources.

All Both emc0376GB

1209. The BLM must ensure that state fish and game agency management goals for sagegrouse should not become the sole driver 

for resource use allocations.

All BLM emc0376GB

1210. The BLM should provide a mechanism for reporting to the public on field office projects benefitting sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitat.

All BLM emc0376GB

1211. The BLM should provide a mechanism and criteria for exceptions, waivers and modifications to the conservation measures 

when circumstances warrant.

All BLM emc0376GB

1212. BRC is concerned that the agencies may impose a top-down inflexible approach to sage grouse habitat management within 

the individual plan amendments. Simply stated, not all sage grouse habitat is created equal. Providing flexibility to individual 

Field Offices and Forests will provide incentive for and assist the development of management that will more effectively 

enhance the sage grouse population. BRC would prefer this programmatic EIS develop general recommendations and 

guidance for future individual plan amendments. Our view is a large programmatic amendment process will decrease site 

specific analysis and preclude locally based solutions. Wile it is appropriate to provide general guidance at the regional or 

national level, we note that much of the materials and studies provided for public review indicates planning should focus on 

the needs of individual sage grouse populations. The 10 state planning area is a hugely disparate landscape and ownership 

pattern. The local land managers need the flexibility to adapt to circumstances, conditions and events unique to their area.

All Both emc0345GB

1213. We are also concerned about a lack of public involvement in the development of the Priority and General Habitat polygons. 

Numerous agency planning directives mandate public involvement in and review of key planning activities, including and 

especially resource inventories. We strongly encourage the agencies to allow full public review and analysis of the Priority 

and General sage grouse habitat polygons.

All Both emc0345GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-248 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1214. Information regarding proposed planning issues provided to the public is insufficient to make meaningful comments and 

recommendations regarding Alternatives. The NOI and other planning materials simply listed preliminary planning issues. 

None of the information contained sufficient discussion regarding how the issues relate to the purpose and need, existing 

conflict, the relation to sage grouse habitat management or how Alternatives might be developed in response to the issues.

We strongly encourage the agencies to engage the State working groups as well as other key stakeholders in a thorough 

discussion of the preliminary planning issues prior to the development of Draft Alternatives.

All Both emc0345GB

1215. Suggested Planning Issue: The diminished role the multiple-use sustained yield mandate in current land use plans. The agency, 

numerous academic studies, as well as elected representatives have documented the controversy over the agency's 

multiple-use sustained yield mandate and society's increasing value of conservation and preservation of public lands. Over 

the last two or three decades, a lot of land has been removed from multiple-use management via the Endangered Species 

Act, land use planning and legislation. The percentage of BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands under true multiple-use sustained 

yield management has been drastically reduced. Therefore, the remaining multiple use managed lands are extremely 

important. This concern has resulted in several proposed pieces of legislation attempting to enhance multiple use (e.g. The 

Grazing Improvement Act of 2012). We request “The Diminished Role of Multiple-use Sustained Yield Management” be 

identified as a planning issue and brought forward for analysis.

All Both emc0345GB

1216. Comments concerning Alternative development We understand the December 21, 2011 report from the Sage-grouse 

National Technical Team “A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures” will be used to develop an 

alternative. The agencies must also develop a wide range of Alternatives that adequately respond to issues raised by local 

governments and stakeholders as well as the general public.

All Both emc0345GB

1217. The agencies should develop an alternative that provides general guidance and leaves substantial amendments to individual 

land use plans. Such an alternative would provide better site specific analysis, more effective decisions and provide for 

needed flexibility at the local level

All Both emc0345GB

1218. Safari Club is convinced that a significant goal of all GSG conservation efforts should be preventing the GSG from being 

added to the list of threatened or endangered species. Such a listing would end hunting of the GSG and would have 

devastating economic consequences throughout the range of the GSG. Safari Club understands that including GSG 

conservation in enforceable management plans for federally administered lands that encompass GSG habitat will help enable 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) to determine that adequate regulatory mechanisms exist to manage and conserve 

the species. However, Safari Club is greatly concerned that constraints in the FWS’ recent global settlement will created a 

situation in which, regardless of the successes that the FS, BLM, and other stakeholders achieve, those efforts will fail to

prevent the FWS from proposing to list the GSG in 2015

All Both emc0349GB

1219. Safari Club understands the need for the U.S. Forest Service (“FS”) and BLM to coordinate conservation between federal 

agencies, the state management authorities and the public. Safari Club applauds BLM’s decision to allow state GSG 

conservation policies to supersede the BLM plans after approval by the USFWS and adoption by BLM, such as the approved 

Wyoming plan. However, Safari Club is concerned about the application of this decision. BLM should clearly articulate that 

only the state plan should be used to guide management decisions, rather than a combination of state and federal plans and 

RMPs should be amended to incorporate only the state’s policy, not the BLM conservation measures. While SCI understands 

All Both emc0349GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-249

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the need for federal/state collaboration, this should be done during the approval process for the state plan rather than by 

adding multiple layers of regulation later in the process.

1220. Safari Club has challenged the FWS’s multi-species settlement agreements in court as illegal on a variety of bases, including 

the FWS’s abandonment of its statutory “warranted but precluded” authority and its failure to include the public in the 

decisionmaking for the listing priorities of species such as the GSG. The FS and BLM could themselves take steps to question 

and/or challenge the legality of settlements that failed to include the input of federal agencies that have “on-the-ground” 

responsibility for the conservation of the 800+ species, including the GSG, covered by the settlements. The FS and BLM 

should take all steps necessary to make certain that the FWS has not illegally and/or unnecessarily abandoned its ability to 

recognize the fruits of the conservation labors that the FS and BLM achieve by including GSG conservation in its resource 

management planning.

All Both emc0349GB

1221. SCI is very concerned about maintaining incentives for private conservation efforts. SCI believes that BLM may end up piling 

on regulatory measures that actually undermine private conservation of habitat and unnecessarily restrict economic 

activities across the entire range of the species. These regulations could greatly affect land access, jobs and economic 

development across the West. It is vital that any federal GSG conservation efforts support and complement current private 

efforts rather than displace current land users. Meaningful sage grouse management cannot just mean saying “no.” It is vital 

that the current private and state sage grouse conservation efforts are maintained and expanded. Without sensible 

state-level management strategies that are informed by local stakeholders, we will be encumbered by federal, one-size-fits all 

approaches that could have lasting harmful impacts on the economic lifeblood of our region and our outdoor heritage.

All Both emc0349GB

1222. Eureka County and many of our local advisory boards including our Natural Resources Advisory Commission and our 

Wildlife Advisory Board have been active participants for GSG and habitat conservation. Eureka County participated in the 

Nevada "Governor's Team" for GSG, when that effort started in 2000. We have committed ourselves, through our local 

advisory boards—consisting of ranchers, farmers, miners, sportsmen, businessmen, and recreationists—in local 

conservation planning and habitat enhancement activities. Because of this participation, we are concerned about the 

continual planning and wonder when enough planning will be done to satisfy the requirements to get to work on the ground. 

Of primary concern is that it seems that the BLM and other state/federal agencies have discarded the conservation work and 

partnerships at the local level instead focusing on development of a typical government top-down approach for another 

planning process. Approaching GSG conservation from a top-heavy, top-down approach undermines these local efforts and 

does little to build a spirit of collaboration with those local entities necessary if any planning effort is going to be successful 

in implementation of real conservation.

All Both emc0383GB

1223. When outlining measures for GSG habitat conservation, the EIS must consider localized conditions and influences and be 

based on current understanding of rangeland health, primarily ecological site descriptions and states and transitions models 

that are targeted to local ecological drivers. It is a dangerous bureaucratic concept to focus on a programmatic, 

one-size-fits-all approach—dangerous for multiple uses and GSG themselves. Although there is mention made of 

incorporating conservation measures "based on the principles of Adaptive Management" it is clear that the management 

flexibility to meet local conditions and requirements is not going to be adequately incorporated with the current federal 

agency mindset that there needs to be a guarantee of consistent applications of regulatory controls that are inflexible. The 

All Both emc0383GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-250 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

EIS needs to outline an Adaptive Management process to be included into the LUP revisions that focuses on and gives 

deference to management at the localized level. Inherent in Adaptive Management is that it recognizes progression towards 

ultimate resource goals through measurable objectives. Under true Adaptive Management, there is potential to actually find 

that the habitat is providing necessary requirements for GSG and for management to remain status quo. The bias that

appears to be built in to this process through the NOI and the recent Ims is that nearly any land use or land management 

strategy is at odds with GSG conservation. There appears to be an underlying tone of protectionism rather than 

conservation through sustainable use.

1224. Where limitations are identified, Adaptive Management and collaborative processes should be instituted to consider possible 

solutions, implement on-the-ground changes/enhancement activities and monitor for results. It is imperative that these 

actions be taken on a local basis, involving an inclusive opportunity for all locally affected stakeholders (private sector and 

government).

All Both emc0383GB

1225. Please consider the Eureka County Master Plan (Plan), specifically the Natural Resources & State and Federal Land Use 

Element of the Plan as Eureka County’s primary input into the Land Use Plan (LUP) revisions to incorporate GSG 

conservation measures. Local land use management plans should provide for the framework regarding the ability for public 

involvement and participation in GSG conservation efforts. Eureka County’s Plan outlines the goals, objectives, and guidance 

for the use of lands and resources located within Eureka County. Eureka County will not, and cannot, support any 

management option that is inconsistent with this Plan. The Plan also calls for federal agencies to fully comply with the intent 

of Congress as specified in various federal laws, including FLPMA and NEPA, by properly coordinating with Eureka County 

in incorporating the land use policies of Eureka County into agency documents and activities and resolving inconsistencies 

between federal proposals and County plans. This includes involvement in the decision making processes of the federal 

entity that are being taken or are being proposed to be taken regarding federal lands located within Eureka County or 

involve any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human and natural environment within the County.

Coordination with local governments is mandated and guaranteed regardless of Cooperating Agency status and regardless 

of formal comment being submitted by a local government during the official public scoping period (see 40 CFR § 1501.6 and 

§ 1508.5).

All Both emc0383GB

1226. We have found that BLM’s definition of coordination is often used synonymously with “collaboration” and “consultation.” 

Although coordination may include collaboration and consultation, coordination by definition is not synonymous with 

collaboration or consultation. Only a local governmental entity, elected by the people and accountable to it, is able to 

incorporate and legitimize the compromises necessary for sustainable management of the lands that the community is so 

dependent on. Regular, principled coordination is the only way to put to rest past conflicts and allay fears about community 

viability threats down the road in addition to reducing the need for appeal and judicial review of federal land management 

decisions. In the end we believe that including and properly implementing coordination in the process will work now to build 

and strengthen the foundation for the long-term while making the necessary management decisions at the necessary 

scale—the local scale.

All Both emc0383GB

1227. The issue is that all of the opportunity for public input will take place after the regulatory framework of the IM has been in 

effect for two years. The designation of the previously mentioned habitat maps provided no opportunity for public 

All Both emc0383GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-251

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

participation or evaluation. This is extremely dangerous to uses offederally administered land given the fact that the driving 

force behind the decisions to be made on public lands until the LUP revisions are complete will be based on these habitat 

maps. Similarly, the NOI invites the public "to nominate or recommend areas on public lands for greater sagegrouse and 

their habitat to be considered as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern as part of this planning process." Public notice and 

opportunity for comment should be required before any such Areas are designated. We consider these reconstituted 

approaches for avoiding meaningful public involvement and coordination with local governments as a distasteful and harmful 

abomination of the regulatory process. Government agencies huddling behind closed doors to make their intended 

outcomes into “command and control” should not be tolerated. This informal rule making without adherence to established 

formal procedures and process is outside of government agency authority

1228. I am writing in support of a strong plan to protect the greater sage grouse All Both rmc0008RM

1229. Land use plans ensure that the public lands are managed in accordance with the intent of Congress as stated in FLPMA (43 

U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.), under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield." See BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use 

Planning; see also 43 U.s.c. § 1712(c)(1) (emphasis added). As required by BLM policy and the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act ("FLPMA"}, public lands must be managed in a manner that: protects the quality of scientific, scenic, 

historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where 

appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for 

fish and wildlife and domestic animals; that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; and that 

recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals. food, timber, and fiber from the public lands by encouraging 

collaboration and public partiCipation throughout the planning process. Land use plans are one of the primary mechanisms 

for guiding BLM activities to achieve the mission and goals outlined in the Department of the Interior (001) Strategic Plan.See 

BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning (emphasis added). The purpose and need as stated in the Sage-Grouse NOI 

and Technical Report ignores the FLPMA and BLM requirement that land use plans must consider not merely one aspect of 

BLM's mUltiple-use mandate, but all aspects, including human occupancy and use and mineral development.

All Both rmc0021RM

1230. With respect to NEPA, though BLM may have a preferred analysis during its NEPA review, "the comprehensive 'hard look' 

mandated by Congress and required by NEPA must be timely, and it must be taken objectively and in good faith, not as an 

exercise in form over substance, and not as a subterfuge designated to rationalize a decision already made." Forest Guardians 

v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 611 F.3d 692, 712 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000). In 

fact, an EIS "shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying 

decisions already made." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.5. As currently proposed, BLM's Sage-Grouse NOI and the statements by BLM 

regarding the intended use of the Technical Report, raise significant questions about whether BLM has already irreversibly 

and irretrievably committed itself to a plan of action (i .e. choosing conservation of the sage-grouse and its habitat over 

mineral development or other anthropogenic uses of public lands) before BLM has in fact completed the environmental 

analysis of its preferred alternative. BLM must broaden the scope of its purpose and need, and incorporate sufficient

alternatives and resource analyses, to ensure that BLM has not committed itself to conservation of the sage-grouse or 

sage-grouse habitat at the expense of mineral development. BLM's resource analysis must fully explore all impacts of any 

conservation measures or prohibitions on mineral development, including impacts to mineral development on private or 

All BLM rmc0021rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-252 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

state lands that require access across federal lands managed by BLM. BLM may not contrive a purpose and need so narrow 

as to define competing reasonable alternatives out of consideration (and even out of existence) . See Simmons v. United 

States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 120 F.3d 664,669 (7th Or. 1997); see also New Mexico ex reI. Richardson v. BLM, 565 F.3d 

683,708-09 (10th Cir. 2009).

1231. As noted above, the Technical Report explains that BLM's narrow objective in chartering the NTI was to develop new or 

revised regulatory mechanisms, through RMPs, to conserve and restore the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on BLM 

administered lands on a range-wide basis over the long term. Oxy's concerns regarding BLM's impermissibly narrow scope 

with respect to the Technical Report and thus the purpose and need for BLM's proposal are compounded by the fact that the 

Technical Report has not yet been subject to public comment. In fact, the NTI met only from August 28 through September 

2, 2011, with a subset of the team meeting December 5-8, to further articulate the scientific basis for the conservation 

strategy. NTI at 5. The Technical Report was then completed on December 21, 2011. At no time was the public involved in 

an evaluation of the findings of the NTI or the recommendations in the Technical Report, nor has the public since been 

afforded an opportunity to comment. Despite this lack of public comment, on December 27, 2011, BLM issued Instruction

Memorandum No. 2012-{)44 ("1M" ) to all Field Officials. The 1M provides direction to BLM for considering the greater 

sage-grouse conservation measures identified by NTI's Technical Report. The 1M instructs Field Officials to consider the 

conservation measures developed by the NTI in land use planning by all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied 

greater sage-g rouse habitat. Through the directive in this 1M, BLM has essentially adopted the recommendations made by 

the Technical Report without first affording interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Technical Report. Rather 

than unilaterally choosing to adopt the recommendations identified in the Technical Report, BLM must consider the NEPA 

process for the RMPs as an appropriate avenue for seeking and considering public comment on not only the 

recommendations in the Technical Report, but the underlying premises and assumptions contained within that Technical 

Report. Because the Technical Report has not yet been vetted with the public, and has not undergone the requisite NEPA 

analysis, BLM should not presume the incorporation of the Technical Report's recommendations. 0"" reserves its rights to 

comprehensively comment on the Technical Report in any future public comment proceedings, including those on the draft 

EIS, and BLM's use of and incorporation of the Technical Report in its NEPA analysis. BLM must maintain an open mind 

regarding not only appropriate methods for conserving sage-grouse habitat, but the appropriateness of conserving 

sage-grouse habitat in particular locations with competing land uses.

All BLM rmc0021RM

1232. In general, it is important that we begin to work hard to implement local working group plans, statewide plans and the range 

wide plan. It is also important that best management practices for the management of all sage grouse habitat be used

All Both emc0338GB

1233. All too often, we have suggested that we need more information to make better choices for sage grouse. The time to act is 

upon us. While there is assuredly room for more study of the species, continued emphasis on study will do little to conserve 

these birds.

All Both emc338GB

1234. While the WACD and its members recognize that because of the Sage Grouse litigation before Judge Winmill in Idaho, the 

BLM has determined to prepare a SEIS for the Sage Grouse throughout its range, and then use the SEIS to determine if 

amendments to individual land use plans (both BLM and Forest Service) is necessary. While the BLM may prepare this 

programmatic document, the WACD advocates that the SEIS fully recognize that any individual determinations or strategies 

All Both emc0342GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-253

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

must be done at a local level. This concern is especially important considering the BLM Technical Team report on Sage 

Grouse management. That report was completed without ANY input from the range science community and thus has little 

value in informing how habitat should be managed. Neither the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Taylor Grazing 

Act, nor the Public Rangelands Improvement Act give the BLM jurisdiction over wildlife, including the Sage Grouse. Rather 

BLM's mandate is limited to management and protection of habitat

1235. BLM must fully consider a "No Action" alternative. Existing federal, state and local management measures are in place and 

appear to have stabilized Greater Sage-Grouse (GSG) populations in many areas.

All BLM rmc0024RM

1236. Any land use restrictions of necessity must be based on a project by project basis including future projects not yet identified. All Both rmc0024RM

1237. The proposed restriction of disturbance to 2.5% of the area is ill conceived and poorly defined. Why 2.5%? 2.5% of what? All Both rmc0024RM

1238. Alternatives considered should not impinge on private property rights without consent of the owner. All Both rmc0024RM

1239. I urge the BLM to adopt the scientifically and morally grounded Sage Grouse Recovery Alternative submitted by the 

conservation community. The BLM has delayed for years the necessary policies to protect the remaining Sage Grouse 

habitat, allowing its populations to continue their retreat before energy extraction, water mining, and cattle grazing. The 

Sage Grouse is out of time and out of space, and BLM must adopt the conservation alternative to prevent the functional 

extinction of this keystone species of western semi-arid ecosystems.

All Both rmc0037RM, 

rmc0070GB

1240. If the BLM and Forest Service cannot or will not make the tough but necessary decisions to prioritize the survival of the Sage 

Grouse, then the Fish and Wildlife Service will be obligated to list this animal as Threatened or Endangered by the standing 

deadline of 20 15. The burden of proof and efficacy now falls upon BLM and Forest Service to fulfill their legal r esponsibilities 

to the Sage Grouse, or have those responsibilities stripped and delegated instead to the jurisdiction of the Endangered 

Species Act, which its current demographic status would already rightfully justify. The BLM and Forest Service have already 

been shown extraordinary generosity and patience in being allowed three more years with the Sage Grouse, and you must 

take this final opportunity to properly value western America's semi-arid ecosystems.

All Both rmc0037RM, 

rmc0070GB

1241. As described below, VGC also has concerns about the map entitled "Nevada BLM and USFS Greater Sage-Grouse 

Preliminary Habitat Map" that BLM and the U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") recently made available to the public. We believe 

this landscape-scale map is inappropriate for making the kinds of land use decisions described in the NTT Report that will 

affect project-level activities.

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

1242. Because BLM's proposed conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms cannot conflict with FLPMA, the EIS documents 

must provide a detailed discussion of how the Proposed Action, Agency Preferred Alternative, and Alternatives Considered 

in Detail comply with the FLPMA mandate to achieve the appropriate balance between a variety of public land use objectives 

that include sage-grouse habitat conservation and providing a domestic source of minerals. Similarly, the EIS documents must 

evaluate how the proposed measures comply with the "harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources" 

directive in Section 531 of MUSY A. Clearly, withdrawing national forest lands from operation of the Mining Law in

preference for sage grouse habitat conservation is not a "harmonious or coordinated" way in which to manage these lands.

The land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals recommended in the NTT Report deem sage-grouse habitat 

preservation the highest and best use of the public lands and national forests. Adopting this single-use perspective would be 

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-254 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

a sea change in the way in which BLM manages public lands and USFS manages the national forests. Implementation of this 

radical change would conflict with the underlying multiple-use premise of both FLPMA and MUSY A.

1243. The 4W Ranch has a very keen interest in the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Our ranching operation and 

our very livelihood are being put into severe jeopardy if this Planning Strategy is put into place. As this Planning Strategy is 

using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), then NEPA shall be followed to the exact letter of the Law and the 

Human Environment1 must be protected. In our view this Planning Strategy is not following the NEPA Process2. We will go 

into further detail later in this comment document where already the BLM and the Forest Service have failed to follow and 

obey Federal Law.

All Both rmc0034RM

1244. It is our contention that the National Environmental Policy Act is the Law of the Land. It was enacted by the Congress of the 

United States for the primary and specific purpose to protect the Human Environment. The Council On Environment 

Quality Regulation, CFR 1500 thru 1508 spell out the direction that the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service shall take in drafting 

this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is the Constitutional duty of the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to follow the 

Law as it was written. Period.

All Both rmc0034RM

1245. The last item that we want to bring to your attention is the failure of the BLM and the Forest Service to physically meet with 

our Weston County Commissioners before the public scoping meeting was held in Newcastle, WY on 9 March 2012. 

Documentation and 1M's indicate that series of plans were being initiated by the BLM in mid 2011 for this Sage-Grouse Land 

Use Amendment. Federal Laws including NEPA require Coordination with Local Governments and Local Land Use Plans 

before the Scoping Process is initiated. Why did this not happen?

All Both rmc0034RM

1246. Localized, adaptive, coordinated management will be essential to success in meeting Sage-grouse goals. Flexibility to modify 

seasons of use, amount of use and sometimes species of use based upon extreme changes in precipitation or temperature, 

the occurrence of range fires or rehabilitation projects will be necessary to meet sage-grouse goals on private, as well as 

public, lands. Range fires and range rehabilitation projects fall into the same category.

All Both rmc0063GB

1247. That the BLM/FS incorporate specific language into the LUP amendments that recognizes and acknowledges the role of 

Utah's LWG's in sage-grouse conservation issues. This language must emphasize the importance of sustaining a working 

relationship with LWGs to accomplish the species and community conservation strategies contained within the local LWG 

plans.

All Both rmc0066GB

1248. We recommend that these LUPs contain specific language that they are adaptive and dynamic plans and thus responsive to 

new information, research, technology, knowledge, and/or changing environmental conditions. As new sage-grouse or 

sagebrush best management practices are developed, the LUPs are and can be adaptive as well.

All Both rmc0066GB

1249. We recommend that the final LUPs be flexible enough to ensure avoidance of a 'one size shoe fits all' approach by the 

BLM/FS. Based on research conducted by Utah State University it is clear that some LWGs areas may never achieve 

published recommended sage-grouse habitat guidelines. Yet, these populations continue to thrive. Thus, regulatory and 

management decisions should not be based on unachievable standards but rather embrace local sage-grouse population 

needs as identified by the LWG and the LWG plans. The LUPs should be local in nature and not based on national LUPs. We 

recognize the BLM/FS plans must ensure sage-grouse and their habitats are protected, they must also incorporate local 

differences in habitat and populations.

All Both rmc0066GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-255

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1250. We strongly support the off-site mitigation language and encourage BLM/FS to work within the LWGs to identify project 

areas that would be best suited for any off site mitigation.

All Both rmc0066GB

1251. Mapping of habitat- It is not enough to only map habitat. What surrounds borders or impacts that habitat can be the 

controlling factor. A small area of sage grouse habitat on public land surrounded by private land with a growing human 

population that exerts increased pressure on a small remnant Sage grouse population can make that habitat a moot issue. 

The future for maintaining even a small population under these conditions is bleak.

All Both rmc0057GB

1252. We strongly oppose components of the 2010 Conservation Measures that lack the flexibility to adapt to local management 

issues. The plan amendments should avoid inflexible management standards. Rather than impose a inflexible, broad-brush 

management prescription for the Grouse, we suggest the BLM adopts a "landscape specific" approach to minimize the 

impacts on both the Grouse and the recreating public.

All Both rmc0061GB, 

rmc0035RM

1253. For example, we oppose the provision mandating that any "anthropogenic disturbances" cover less than 3% of the total sage 

grouse habitat. Without any flexibility, the implementation of this standard on the ground will be extremely difficult. Indeed, 

the agencies may be forced to restrict activities that have been found to have little to no impact on the grouse.

All Both rmc0061GB, 

rmc0035RM

1254. All management planning activities within the range of sage grouse must take into account all recommendations developed 

by the NTT, including recommendations outlined in the Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures. 

The recommendations from the NTT should be a minimum standard by which sage grouse management and prescriptions 

proceed.

All Both emc0380GB

1255. Priority and general habitat, as recommended by the NTT, must be diligently designated to ensure that all key habitat areas 

are considered in management planning processes. Priority habitat should include all winter range, breeding habitat and 

migration corridors for sage grouse and policies on disturbances should be based on peerreviewed science and technical 

reports from federal agencies and NGO’s.

All Both emc0180GB

1256. It is important that the BLM take these factors into consideration as you work to develop sciencebased approach to sage 

grouse management. It is also important that coordination between the BLM and other land-management agencies, such as 

state fish and wildlife agencies and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, is developed so that consistent measures are 

implemented for the continued sustainability of sage grouse throughout its range. We also recommend that the BLM take 

into consideration the formal comments of our partner organizations, who are also submitting in depth comments.

All BLM emc0380GB

1257. In preparing and evaluating the consideration process to implement the massive changes in local land use management plans, 

we believe that it should be essential to document, within the "No Change" alternative, the shortcomings of the current 

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. Using existing Environmental Impact Statement analysis and 

operating under the current set of manuals for species protections, which cover species in the same status as Sage-Grouse, 

we want it spelled out clearly the lack of protection afforded.

All Both rmc0058GB

1258. The draft EIS should include demonstrated evidence of what will be allowed for Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat 

conservation that might pass as recognizing Adaptive Management. It seems that the objective is to make all land use plans fit 

a consistent model without dealing with the actual risks of a specific area. Requiring a one-size-fits-alliand use plan seems to 

run counter to an Adaptive Management System which recognizes the potential for changes to fit real world scenarios.

All Both rmc0058GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-256 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1259. Depending on the manner in which the "Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures" produced in 

December of 2011 by an all government "Technical Team" we could likely anticipate multiple-non-use as the outcome for 

prescribed solution. How does "Adaptive Management" with this predestined course fit?

All Both rmc0058GB

1260. The report states: "Land uses, habitat treatments and human-caused disturbances need to be managed below thresholds

necessary to conserve not only sage-grouse populations but sagebrush communities and landscapes as well. "We expect that 

the draft EIS documentation will clearly define what "thresholds" will be applied and the degree to which these "thresholds" 

will be universally applied.

All Both rmc0058GB

1261. Further, we read: "Management priorities will need to be shifted and balanced to maximize benefits to Sage-Grouse habitat 

and populations in priority habitats. " We would maintain that clearly defined "shifts and balanced management priorities" will 

be explained, offering the details of how on-the-ground management actions are to be carried out.

All Both rmc0058GB

1262. Where limitations are identified in resource conditions, adaptive management and collaborative processes should be 

instituted to consider possible solutions. The initial consideration should be given to which type of habitat enhancement can

be conducted to proactively seek to institute improvement. This could take the form of habitat restoration that includes 

seeding or other forms of intervention alternatives that don't automatically assume limiting use. In cases where habitat 

restoration is implemented or when adjustments to use activities are implemented, monitoring activities should monitor for 

results with local consideration and evaluation of circumstances contemplating where and how resources are responding. 

These actions should be taken on a local basis, involving an inclusive opportunity for all stakeholders (private sector and 

government).

All Both rmc0058GB

1263. Local land use management plans should provide for the framework regarding the ability for public involvement and 

participation in sage-grouse conservation efforts. These activities should include (but not be limited to) determinations of 

where there are specific local needs of specific populations of Sage-Grouse and how those needs can be addressed with 

on-the-ground management activities

All Both rmc0058GB

1264. Instead of the offered concept of top-down planning, which requires national guidelines to be infiltrated into local land use 

plans, we maintain that a "conservationlhabitat enhancement option" needs to be considered which works from the 

ground-up for evaluating and enhancing Sage-Grouse habitat. Building on the previous section for local planning, we expect 

an alternative option EIS consideration for land use decisions to be dealt with on the basis of NEPA evaluation of proposed 

projects and the emphasis of mitigation actions which seek to enhance essential Sage-Grouse habitat, based on the specific 

requirements that address needs of specific populations. As example, if on-the-ground assessment determines that a critical 

component of Sage-Grouse habitat needs involves improved nesting habitat, conservation measures which stem from 

mitigation activities would feature enhancement of nesting habitat. Measurement and monitoring would be required to 

assure that actions taken are having positive effects. Likewise, another area may require improved brood-rearing habitat 

improvements and actions taken for mitigation would feature related enhancement that address these needs.

All Both rmc0058GB

1265. Experience indicates that this approach will focus on applying restrictive "thou shalt not" measures instead of implementing 

specific proactive on-the-ground management for specific areas. The section within the "Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" pertaining to restricting anthropogenic disturbances to three-percent or less within 

established "Preliminary Priority Habitat" demonstrates the bias for non-use as the standard management approach.

All Both rmc0058GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-257

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1266. With the bias against anthropogenic disturbance, the draft EIS should describe whether rehabilitation activities, carried out

by man, are subject to "disturbance" limitations. We also want a definitive classification of what are "distinct" and "diffuse" 

anthropogenic disturbances and whether they will be treated equally in the limitations of disturbances which are allowed.

All Both rmc0058GB

1267. As a great deal of Nevada's "Preliminary Priority Habitat" is connected across the landscape, does the limitations in the 

calculation of less than three-percent disturbance apply to an immediate area or to the connected "Preliminary Priority 

Habitat" as a whole?

All Both rmc0058GB

1268. In this same context of attempting to understand the variety of new management dictates for the consequences of 

implementing Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-43 and the potential use L~e of "Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures", we believe that it is necessary to provide background documentation in 

non-government speak to understand how whatever techniques will be integrated into implementation of management 

plans. While expert input and technical advice should playa key role in shaping considered actions, we also need to 

understand how these prescribed concepts will translate into actual on-the-ground management decisions and practices.

All Both rmc0058GB

1269. Having arrived at the point, with the March 9th release of the Nevada BLMIU.S. Forest Service map, where the areas have 

been designated, we wish to express our strongest degree of frustration over the manner in which the agencies avoided 

NEPA compliance in not providing for public input into these designations, BEFORE the action was taken. We submit that 

the Administrative Procedures Act requires that public notice and opportunity for public comment should have been 

provided BEFORE special protection areas can be designated on federal lands. With the designations completed the 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043 took effect (also without providing for prior public comment and input). Although 

the draft EIS process "invites" comments for the designations and provisions of the Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043, 

the opportunity to comment comes AFTER the implementation of the land management actions have gotten underway. The 

news release manner for making the "official designation" decision also avoids the NEPA process since the decision for action

lacks a decision available for appeal.

All Both rmc0058GB

1270. The draft EIS should present a strong argument for the legitimacy of not following the agencies' authority and requirements 

for complying with NEP A. These arguments and background information should also highlight the specific shortcomings in 

following existing NEPA requirements for making land use decisions outside of the Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043.

• We would like to know why the existing agency manuals (which are identified as not being changed by the Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2012-043) are not used in this case. • We would like to know why the existing system for project level 

NEPA analysis is not used in regard to land management use decisions relating to Sage-Grouse. The draft EIS should also 

present the differentiation on how land use amendments (post-completion of the integration process) will provide for a 

NEPA process which doesn't have a pre-determined outcome for designated areas. NEPA evaluation is supposed to be a 

process to be used in an analysis which evaluates alternatives to arrive at the best outcome. Based on the structure taking 

shape in Sage-Grouse designated areas, the apparent outcomes for decisions are already made and the process will be 

structured to arrive at that determination.

All Both rmc0058GB

1271. We find it troubling that the strategy employed for the planning process which provided the public involvement at 

informational meetings used a different set of classification "Core Habitat" for something that isn't being used in Nevada. The 

March 9, 2012 news release, which served as the "official notice" of the habitat categorization map to be used, came long 

All Both rmc0058GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-258 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

after the public scoping meetings had been completed and thus avoided the public scrutiny which could have come from 

dealing with actual information that would be used. We are concerned that the designation of these habitats and the 

regulatory application of conservation measures could be arbitrary without actual land-based conditions to justify the 

designation as well as the required regulatory burden. At a meeting of the "Governor's Sage Grouse Team" held in Sparks, 

NY on March 8, 2012, it was noted that the accuracy of the map information used to develop the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife map for Habitat Categorization was seriously flawed. It was indicated that the accuracy of the data used was old 

(going back as far as 2001) and represented only about 40 percent reliability to on-the-ground conditions. In some areas that 

figure of reliability could be as low as 5 percent. The "White Paper" provided by the Nevada Department of Wildlife Habitat 

Categorization does not offer any detail regarding this type of reliability, except to say that it shouldn't be used for "project 

level" analysis. As the draft EIS is being prepared, clarification needs to be provided on how "project level" information will 

translate to dealing with an overall designation of an area being classified as "Preliminary Priority Habitat", perhaps 

incorrectly, based on unsubstantiated or ground-proofed evaluation. The White Paper also indicates that further potential 

for changes will be considered in a three to five (3-5) year future timeframe. Are any future changes to the BLMIV.S. Forest 

Service designated maps linked to this same type of timeframe? Will corrections to the map require the Nevada Department 

of Wildlife's in vol vementl approval? As we have pointed out, the Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043 details an 

inventory/assessment, using th.e "Sage~Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework". If this on-t..1-te-ground

inventory/assessment determines that a specific area is not in line with the qualities associated with "Preliminary Priority

Habitat", will the agencies change their map to reflect actual conditions?

1272. Lastly, in regard to the specifics of the proposed Nevada Department of Wildlife Habitat Categorization and the results 

produced in the designations by the federal land management agencies, we are concerned by the over-abundance of 

designated habitat area. While we understand that Sage-Grouse are a land-scale species (and the reason they are being 

considered as a surrogate, victimized species, in order to gain the greatest level of control over the greatest expanse of the 

landscape), we have to question the legitimacy of the habitat designations which encompass as much land as is highlighted in 

the maps.

All Both rmc0058GB

1273. The impression is given that the Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043, spelling out specific management guidelines for 

various actions and activities for "Preliminary Priority Habitat" and "Preliminary General Habitat", are in consideration for 

the draft EIS development to integrate into local land use management plans. We've also noted "Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" which was produced by the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team. Where does this 

extensive (and onerous) set of prescribed actions fit into the mix of the regulatory regime that is being contemplated? 

Additional documents are related and interconnected to the official and non-official, but apparently still in-force 

requirements (example "Sage Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework"), are not readily available or understood. Those 

impacted by management decisions should have an understanding, through a clearly articulated outline of what standards and 

expectations are to be used. There should further be a clear plan on how these massive and intrusive directives will be 

integrated into land

All Both rmc0058GB

1274. Analyze the implications of species recovery success through large-scale uniform requirements as opposed to local 

coordinated planning for longterm engagement and success of conservation measures.

All Both rmc0055GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-259

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1275. Analyze the affects or influences of single species conservation planning on the shared environment in the natural world, 

where the land.scape specy prompts the concern.

All Both rmc0055GB

1276. To this point, Sage-grouse conservation efforts have been developed and implemented at a local, PMU, and state levels. This 

effort is primarily focused and developed by State and Federal agencies. The Board believes success will be dictated by the 

level of local input and buy-in achieved by this process. Therefore, the Board urges cooperation and coordination with local

PMU working groups. Perhaps this could be achieved by holding workshops between BLM District or Field Offices and PMU 

groups to review the Draft PElS, Conservation Measures and Maps. The Board believes this to be essential to success of the 

strategy. The Board would request an opportunity to review all habitat designation maps prior to final adoption in an effort

to ground truth these with the local knowledge of our members who hold permits in these areas.

All Both rmc0050GB

1277. Conservation measures must be developed to allow for effective adaptive management and flexibility at a "local level. The 

problem with developing a broad PElS is that it often is too prescriptive and restrictive for meaningful measures to be taken 

based on local, site-specific conditions. Again, the best way to provide the needed flexibility is to invite and encourage input

of local stakeholders and existing working groups.

All Both rmc0050GB

1278. This Report indicates that "fire and invasion by exotic grasses are widespread causes for habitat loss, particularly in the 

western part of the sage-grouse range (Miller et al 2011)." Livestock grazing can be one of the most effective management 

tools for addressing this particular issue. This management option is limited every time additional regulations are imposed or 

grazing permits are further restricted or eliminated. The report goes on to say that "the Bureau of Land Management has 

committed to a new paradigm in managing sagebrush landscapes. That new paradigm will require collaborative conservation 

efforts among private, state, tribal and other federal partners to conserve sage-grouse." This list needs to include local 

stakeholders, local PMU working groups and livestock permittees!

All Both rmc0050GB

1279. Under the "Policy/Action" Section there is a statement specific to development of the preliminary priority and general 

habitat maps that states, "These science-based maps were developed using the best available data and may change as new 

information becomes available. Such changes would be science-based and coordinated with state wildlife agencies so that the 

resulting delineation of PPH and PGH provides for sustainable populations." In most cases, at least in Nevada, these 

preliminary maps have not been released, nor have they been vetted through local working groups. The Board strongly 

recommends a process within the PElS procedure that provides such a vetting process. Simply stated, the best available 

information is at the local level and there are huge gaps in the "science base" due to the magnitude of sage-grouse range.

All Both rmc0050GB

1280. Many of the bullet points in this section do NOT include the individual pennittees and local Sage-grouse working groups as 

cooperators. This is a serious deficiency that needs to be resolved in the Draft PElS.

All Both rmc0050GB

1281. On December 27, 2012, an Instruction Memorandum (No. 2012-044) was issued by the Bureau of Land Management's 

Washington D.C. office. The Instruction Memorandum provides direction to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for 

considering Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures identified in the Sage-Grouse-National Technical Team's (NTT) -

A Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures. As a result of the NTT report, the BLM through the 

instruction memorandum has adopted several interim protective measures for Preliminary Priority and Preliminary General 

Sage Grouse habitat. In some cases, these measures have the potential to have significant impacts to multiple uses on public 

lands and other natural resources. These potential impacts should be analyzed under NEPA before implementation. NV 

All Both rmc0049GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-260 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Energy recommends that current protective measures identified in the current Land Use Plans be utilized until this analysis 

is completed.

1282. NV Energy presumes that the ultimate goal of the Instruction Memorandum for Sage-Grouse conservation is to avoid the 

listing of Sage-Grouse as an endangered species. NV Energy requests that the proposed EIS include a detailed analysis of the 

No Action Alternative assuming the final outcome is a listing.

All Both rmc0049GB

1283. NV Energy requests accurate maps which identify preliminary priority sage-grouse habitat versus preliminary general 

sage-grouse habitat. The accurate maps should be detailed enough to use for project planning purposes. These maps should 

be provided to all stakeholders so informed commentary and decision making can take place.

All Both rmc0049GB

1284. The need to establish "regulatory mechanisms" seems redundant. The BLM already has more rules and regulations then they 

can enforce, hence the continual losing of court cases because they are not in compliance with their own policies. Instead of 

tightening current regulations that have not been proven to be effective in increasing sage grouse populations, why not 

return to the past policies that sage grouse populations increased under?

All Both fxc0013GB

1285. The BLM already has numerous "regulatory mechanisms" over the public land it manages. Adding more of the same 

regulation that has helped cause the bird's population decline is only going to continue the decline.

All BLM fxc0013GB

1286. In order to plan successfully for the future of sage-grouse, it is essential that all federal land-management agencies be actively 

engaged across the bird’s entire range. This includes the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, U.S. Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Departments of Energy and Defense. Currently 

millions of acres of federal lands harboring Greater Sage-grouse are excluded from the planning process to the detriment of 

the species.

All Both fla0000GB

1287. I urge you to develop a conservation plan for this species by protecting its sagebrush habitat All Both emc0416GB

1288. The approach must be adaptable to avoid the inflexible one size fits all of standard federal actions. The ecosystems are 

variable so should the approach to management.

All Both rmc0032GB

1289. Methods of monitoring and evaluation must be flexible and adaptable to allow local input and involvement. All Both rmc0032GB

1290. The EIS must set benchmarks of recovery and criteria for de-listing of the species from whatever listing status it might assign 

(candidate lists).

All Both rmc0032gb

1291. The language, definitions and terms must be clear, concise and consistent in use. All Both rmc0032gb

1292. Analyze the impacts of sage grouse management on all resources based on current laIld plans. All Both rmc0032GB

1293. Communication and cooperation is extremely important in the supporting state and local plans all ready in place and the 

federal agency's rationale for deviation should be made very clear.

All Both rmc0032gb

1294. Insure that cooperating groups are involved and coordinated with. All Both rmc0032GB

1295. As discussed above, the current GSG population exceeds the minimum effective population by 70 to 107 times. Current 

GSG populations and habitats located within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and 

National Conservation Areas likely exceed the minimums needed to safeguard the species against extinction. These 

nationally designated areas already impose regulatory mechanisms that mirror those that are supposed to provide 

All Both emc0409gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-261

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

protections to the GSG. Thus, it is likely that a well reasoned, detailed analysis of the current situation will demonstrate that 

no additional action is necessary because GSG do not legally qualify for listing under the ESA based upon their existence and 

trend in such existing nationally designated areas alone. If analysis of the current situation determines that no existing habitat 

area(s) provide large enough interconnected habitat with sufficient management protections to support the minimum 

effective population of 5,000 interbreeding adults into the foreseeable future, the EIS process must consider alternatives to 

establish adequate habitat areas, such as the alternatives discussed below.

1296. If it is determined that no nationally designated special areas currently provide a contiguous habitat block to support the 

minimum effective population of 5,000 breeding adults, the EIS process must evaluate the extent to which adjacent habitat 

could be incorporated into a special management area to establish such a habitat block. For example, if an existing nationally 

designated wilderness area only lacks some winter habitat to provide for the year-long needs of the minimum effective 

population, and such winter habitat exists on nearby lands, it is entirely reasonable to develop an alternative to incorporate 

that adjoining winter habitat into a special management area and impose any necessary protections on such winter habitat to 

establish a contiguous habitat block to support the minimum effective population. If such contiguous habitat block is

established to meet the needs of the minimum effective population, no additional GSG conservation measures are needed 

across the remainder of the species range to safeguard GSG from extinction and avoid the presumed need for listing under 

the ESA.

All Both emc0409gb

1297. Managing to support a minimum effective population of 5,000 breeding adults in both of the GSG stronghold areas (the 

southwest Wyoming Basin and the Great Basin area straddling Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho) identified by the FWS Findings 

(pages 13958, 13962, 13986, 13988, 14008, and 14009) would represent a reasonable alternative to maintain sufficient 

genetic information to safeguard the GSG against the long-term risk of extinction, thereby avoiding the need to list the 

species under the ESA. Under this alternative, significant genetic information would not only be provided within both

stronghold GSG populations, but also within the separate Gunnison, Washington, and Bi-state populations.

All Both emc0409gb

1298. The December 2011 BLM IMs direct that specific GSG conservation measures be implemented within “Preliminary Priority 

Habitat” which is currently delineated to roughly correspond to the 75% Breeding Density Area mapped by Doherty 

(footnote 7). The 75% Breeding Density Area (area that encompasses 75% of the current GSG population upon 27% of the 

occupied habitat) identified as “Preliminary Priority Habitat” under these instructions exceeds the minimum effective 

population of 5,000 by more than 50 times, and exceeds the acreage needed to support the minimum effective population by 

more than 100 times. If the Breeding Density Area concept is to be used as a strategy to manage GSG for the purpose of 

avoiding the need to list the species under the ESA, only the minimum Breeding Density Area necessary to maintain the 

minimum effect population needs to be identified and conserved. As calculated in Table 1 on page 15 herein, a sage-grouse

conservation measure designed to maintain current populations in a 3% Breeding Density Area would sustain 15,963 GSG in 

Management Zones I – V, which is 3.2 times the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds. Thus, management to maintain 

current populations in a 3% Breeding Density Area would be more than sufficient to avoid the purported need to list the 

species under the ESA. The BLM proposed alternative to impose sage-grouse conservation measures to maintain or enhance 

current populations across a 75% Breeding Density Area is a vast overreach of what is reasonable to achieve the stated 

purpose of the Notice of Intent and avoid the presumed need to list the species under the ESA.

All Both emc0409gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-262 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1299. Given the fact that current GSG populations exceed the minimum effective breeding population by 70 to 107 times, it is clear 

that GSG are not at imminent risk of extinction, and therefore do not legally qualify for listing as “endangered” under the 

ESA. The FWS Findings express concerns regarding rapidly declining GSG populations between the late 1960s and late 

1980s, and continued downward population trends (although at a slower rate) from the late 1980s to the present. The FWS 

Findings fret that such downward trends in GSG populations may threaten the species with extinction at some point in the 

future.Given the recent (1985 – 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% annually (FWS Findings, page 13922), it would take 300 to 330 

years for the current greater sage-grouse population (350,000 to 535,000 birds) to shrink to the minimum effective 

population (5,0000 birds). Theorizing about what might happen three centuries from now reaches well beyond the

foreseeable future. Thus, the FWS Findings expressed concern about long-term outcomes of recent GSG population 

declines does not rise to a determination that the species is threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future, so the GSG 

does not legally qualify for listing as “threatened” under the ESA. Nevertheless, it would be reasonable to consider an

alternative that that would trigger an increase in GSG populations without negatively impacting existing socioeconomic uses 

occurring on BLM and FS administered lands. An analysis of the past management history within the Great Basin indicates 

that GSG flourished when livestock grazing levels were significantly higher than they are now. During this same period, large 

wildfires in the region were very infrequent (likely due to lower fire fuel levels as a result of close grazing), and concerted 

predator control measures were practiced. These management actions could be put into practice again to benefit GSG,

without harming the existing socioeconomic climate, but rather enhancing it. In fact, it is reasonable to argue that the FWS 

Findings get it wrong when they conclude that there are a lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the GSG. 

Instead, many of the regulatory mechanisms currently in place are harming the species. For example, regulations restricting 

livestock numbers and use levels increase fire fuels across the Great Basin, and these regulations have resulted in a dramatic 

increase in large wildfires in the region in recent decades, which has destroyed GSG habitat to the detriment of the species. 

Repeated fire has led many sagebrush communities to convert to cheatgrass dominance, which assures that the habitat will 

remain unfit for GSG into the foreseeable future. Rules restricting predator control, regulating the use of poisons and baits, 

and protecting ravens have resulted in huge GSG loses due to predation. Whenever a species like the GSG with a relatively 

low reproduction rate (FWS Findings, page 13916) loses the vast majority of its eggs to predation, and can trace more than 

80% of the mortality of those individuals that manage to hatch to predation (FWS Findings, pages 13930, 13971, and 13972), 

its populations can be expected to decline. Again, it appears that existing rules are harming GSG populations, not a lack of 

adequate rules. It is reasonable to analyze an alternative to eliminate existing regulatory mechanisms that are harming GSG, 

or replace them with rules that again implement management practices that allowed the species to rapidly increase within 

the Great Basin in the past. Because current GSG populations greatly exceed the minimum effective population, any 

management alternative that would stabilize or increase the current population level would eliminate any perceived 

justification to list the species under the ESA. However, given the multiple-use mandates applicable to BLM and FS 

administered lands, only such an alternative that would help the sage-grouse without negatively impacting other valid existing 

uses is reasonable for consideration and analysis.

All Both emc0409gb

1300. The Organizations believe the Charter for development of the 2010 Conservation Measures is a key tool in developing the 

conservation plan, and must provide an accurate assessment of the potential threats to the grouse as identified in the FWS 

All Both rmc0033GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-263

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

listing decision. A highly accurate summary will allow the limited agency resources to target the most significant concerns for 

the grouse identified in the listing decision. The Organizations believe that an accurate summary of the listing decision is a 

critical component to development of the 2010 Conservation Measures. This position has also been noted as critical to 

management of species. Research has found: "Conservation and management efforts are most likely to succeed when they

focus on increasing vital rates that most strongly influence population growth." 2 The Organizations believe that the 2010 

Charter failed to accurately summarize the priorities clearly identified in the listing decision, which will result in significant 

agency resources being used to target concerns or uses that are low priority in the listing decision. The Organizations

believe this will result in limited benefits to the Grouse being obtained at an unacceptably high cost. Pursuant to the 2010 

Charter for the development of the Sage Grouse Conservation Report and Strategy, the FWS listing decision was 

summarized as follows: "In April 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing decision for the 

greater sage-grouse as "Warranted but Precluded." Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a major threat in 

the USFWS finding on the petition to list the greater sage-grouse.,,3

1301. The Organizations do not believe that local planning staff will have the time or ability to fully review the listing decision during 

the application of the 2010 Grouse Conservation Measures to a particular area. There are simply too many issues and 

initiatives at the field office level to allow time for such a review. An accurate summary of the listing decision will allow local

planners to target major issues for the grouse with limited resources, and the single accurate summary will allow for 

consistency of management of grouse habitat on all public lands. The Organizations do not believe this summary has been 

provided in the 2010 Conservation Measures and this oversight must be remedied to allow for efficient and effective 

management of grouse habitat.

All Both rmc0033GB

1302. Pursuant to the BlM National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, the vision of the plan is: "Vision: Manage 

BlM-administered public land to maintain, enhance and restore sagebrush habitats while ensuring multiple use and sustained 

yield goals of FlPMA." 12 The BlM's 2004 Sage Grouse Management Strategy specifically notes the wide range of concerns 

that are impacting sage grouse habitat, and impair any assertion of disproportionate benefits from just closing areas to 

motorized recreation. The 2004 Conservation Strategy specifically provides: "No single factor can be identified as the cause 

of declines in sage-grouse populations...... Some examples are large-scale conversions to cultivated croplands or pastures, 

altered fire frequencies resulting in conifer invasion at higher elevations and annual grass invasion at lower elevations, 

livestock grazing, herbicide use, mineral and energy development, and recreational activities related to urban growth and 

increased human populations ..... Currently, the risk to sage-grouse comes from multiple sources across mUltiple scales." 13

While the various impacts on sage grouse and sagebrush habitat are only briefly discussed in the 2004 Conservation Strategy, 

extensive discussions of the range of possible impacts are provided in Mr. Connolly's works, which form the basis for most 

of the Conservation Strategy.14 At no point is recreational use of low speed, low volume trails even addressed in Mr. 

Connolly's work-- providing further support for the position that recreational access should remain open in these areas. 

There is no basis for determining that road closures benefit or protect the sage grouse in BLM guidelines.

All Both rmc0033GB

1303. The 2010 Conservation Measures provide for the general management of Sage Grouse habitat in absolute terms which lack 

flexibility to allow land managers to adapt to local management issues for issues other than road networks also. The 2010 

Conservation Measures seek to apply absolute management standards regardless of the comparative levels of private/public 

All Both rmc0033GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-264 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

land ownership of an area that it designated sage grouse habitat. This could directly lead to decisions by land managers to 

exclude all uses of federal lands in areas, when compliance with the proposed standard is simply not achievable. While the 

Organizations are not able to address the scope of this issue throughout all grouse habitat, our concerns are highlighted by

existing research by the Colorado Department of Wildlife, in their development of grouse habitat plans for Colorado.

1304. The Organizations believe that the protection of any endangered or threatened species is a critical part of federal land 

management. The Organizations are also aware that proper identification of the threats and issues causing any species to be 

endangered is critical to developing low cost effective plans for the protection of that species. The Organizations do not 

believe that the Sage Grouse Conservation Measures have accurately prioritized the threats to the Grouse, which will result 

in limited agency resources being used to manage issues that simply not involved in grouse management. Absolute standards 

for issues that are of limited importance to the Grouse will result in significant unintended negative costs to communities in

the vicinity of grouse habitat. A single standard that attempts to manage all roads the same is such a standard as is the 

proposed property management standards. These standards must be adapted to allow for flexibility to allow for proper 

management of local issues to permit public support for the management as this public support will be critical to the program 

moving forward.

All Both rmc0033GB

1305. The EIS should also analyze an alternative that provides for various land uses to be mitigated through habitat improvement 

projects. The work that NNSG has conducted has identified sufficient acreage and opportunity for mitigation projects. Our 

understanding is that various land users have expressed a willingness to contribute to such projects.

All Both rmc0051gb

1306. (7) Imposition of conservation measures must be predicated on an activity that site specifically results in actual harm to sage 

grouse or alteration of habitat and not on the mere potential for an activity to hann sage grouse or alter habitat. Also, 

conservation mea')ures must only be imposed when an activity is impacting tbe population of sage grouse as whole and not 

individual birds, e.g. hunting.

All Both fxc0011GB

1307. I am commenting today on your proposal to tie up Forrest Service and BLM lands in ten western states for the preservation 

of the Sage Grouse. This proposal appears to be a plan to lock up millions of acres of land for most kinds of public access.

All Both fxc0015GB

1308. This [the legitimacy of the ESA listing] appears to be a fundamental question deserving closer examination by the BLM and 

USFS prior to these agencies’ consideration of modifications to their existing Land Use Plans and/or the imposition of 

additional habitat conservation or mitigation measures.

All Both emc0373GB

1309. The following is an executive summary of AWEA’s comments: The Interim IM, the Planning Direction IM, and the NTT 

Report will drive the direction of the RMP amendments and revisions that will come out of the NOI process. Since those 

documents will determine the outcome of that process and were not noticed for comment, AWEA is submitting comments 

on those documents.

All BLM emc0344GB

1310. The NTT Report, NOI and IMs elevate sage-grouse management above other multiple uses of the federal public lands. •

The multiple-use policy for management of Federal public lands is clearly established under FLPMA and NFMA. • BLM's and 

FS's multiple-use mandates trump the single-species management of sagegrouse above the consideration of other resource 

uses on Federal public lands. • Renewable energy development on Federal public lands is an appropriate and accepted land 

use under the multiple-use mandates.

All Both emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-265

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1311. BLM lacks the authority under FLPMA and its Special Status Species Manual to amend the procedures for obtaining a ROW 

without engaging in a rulemaking. • The IMs and the NTT Report violate the APA by imposing, without an opportunity for 

public review and comment, binding requirements on the wind industry that are not included in FLPMA and limiting the 

discretion of BLM staff and the states to carry out the directives of that statute. • These documents both bind wind projects 

(impose additional obligations) and restrict the BLM’s ability (namely, the Field Offices) to exercise discretion in deciding

particular cases regarding ROWs for such projects. • The sage-grouse Ims and NTT Report are impermissible rulemakings 

and should not inform the land management plan revision process.

All BLM emc0344GB

1312. The IMs constitute a rulemaking that should have undergone NEPA analysis. • The failure to complete this review shielded 

the IMs' provisions from consideration of various issues, specifically with respect to the evaluation of: • Other reasonable 

alternatives that could have achieved BLM's conservation objectives while not overly burdening wind energy development.

• The wind industry's contributions in mitigating climate change.

All BLM emc0344GB

1313. • The scope of the EISs and SEISs accompanying the NOI's proposed land use revisions should incorporate the following: o 

The "Purpose and Need" statement should incorporate principles of multiple use and sustained yield. • The reasonable 

range of alternatives addressed in the EISs and SEISs should be limited to those alternatives that are technically and 

economically feasible with respect to wind energy. • Consider alternative design features and mitigation measures in lieu of 

the exclusion area approach. • Recognize existing rights, permits, and proposals, especially pending late-stage ROW 

applications so as to not upset investment-backed expectations of companies, lenders, and investors. • If the BLM is going 

to conduct subregional EISs (rather than regional EISs), the subregions should be based on sage-grouse populations and not 

state borders.

All BLM emc0344GB

1314. • The NTT Report should not be considered because BLM failed to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA). • Due to the FACA violations, the BLM and FS cannot rely on the NTT Report’s findings and conclusions with 

respect to the land use plan amendments addressing sage-grouse conservation.

All BLM emc0344GB

1315. • The conservation measures contemplated by the IMs, NTT Report, and NOI are even more restrictive than those that 

would take effect if the sage-grouse were listed as an endangered or threatened species.

All Both emc0344GB

1316. • The mapping of preliminary priority habitat and preliminary general habitat for sage-grouse is inconsistent and overly 

broad. • Analysis should be augmented with site-specific information detailing actual habitat on the ground to ensure that 

the PPH and PGH does not include non-habitat areas.

All Both emc0344GB

1317. • The conservation measures in the Interim Management IM are not supported by evidence in the record. • The 

requirement to do mitigation measures where the total project disturbance from the ROW and any connected actions is less 

than one linear mile, or 2 acres of disturbance, is not justified. • Buffers for wind energy development are not necessarily 

biologically justified as the impacts for such requirements are unknown. • While timing restrictions that protect leks from 

visual disturbance during the lekking seasons might be biologically justified, the buffer distance will vary according to the site. 

• Mitigation options should not be unnecessarily limited.

All Both emc0344GB

1318. • Several NTT Report requirements are unsupported and unjustified. • The NTT Report unjustifiably adopts, within 

priority habitat, the minimum range of 50-70 percent for long-term sage-grouse persistence. • The lower limit for the 

percentage of sagebrush cover in document studies is between 25-30 percent, and the upper limit is between 50-65 percent. 

All Both emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-266 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

• The requirement that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse habitat 

regardless of ownership is based on studies of resources that are very different from a typical wind project.

1319. • BLM should explore various conservation measure alternatives to the core area exclusion approach. All BLM emc0344GB

1320. This new sage-grouse management policy described in the NTT Report, in conjunction with the NOI and the IMs, elevates 

sage-grouse management above other multiple uses on the federal public lands. This is the case even though BLM and FS have 

established their multiple-use management mandate, which trumps singlespecies management, in the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, as amended, (FLPMA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), and the 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. Congress has rejected such single-species management in favor for multiple-use 

management elsewhere. In passing the 1971 Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, for example, Congress declared its 

intent: "to provide for the protection of the animals from man and not the single use management of areas for the benefit of 

wild free-roaming horses and burros. It is the intent of the committee that the wild free-roaming horses and burros be 

specifically incorporated as a component of the multiple-use plans governing the use of the public lands."

All Both emc0344GB

1321. When drafting the act, Congress intended federal public lands policy to support not only environmental protection, but also 

the necessary human utilization of various resources on public lands. The statutory language and the multiple-use mandate 

indicate that these two concepts-environmental protection and resource utilization-are not mutually exclusive when 

establishing management measures.29 Therefore, the new sagegrouse management policy that limits discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances on public lands that contain sagegrouse habitats to less than 3 percent is at odds with BLM’s existing 

multiple-use policy.

All Both emc0344GB

1322. The United States Supreme Court has found that BLM’s multiple-use policy under FLPMA requires a consideration of the 

uses of public lands that will best meet the public’s needs and does not place one use over another. In Norton v. Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance,30 Southern Utah Western Alliance sought declaratory and injunctive relief for BLM’s failure to 

protect Utah’s public lands from environmental degradation from offroad vehicles (ORVs) pursuant to FLPMA’s 

nonimpairment mandate.31 A unanimous Court ultimately decided that BLM’s alleged failures to act were not remediable 

under the APA.32 In doing so, the Court noted that FLPMA ‘established a policy in favor of retaining public lands for multiple 

use management.’-33 Ultimately, the Court concluded that FLPMA’s nonimpairment standard certainly did not mandate the 

total exclusion of ORV use, further supporting the multiple-use policy.34 The Court’s recognition of the multiple-use policy 

in Norton considered ORV usage-a recreational use-in tandem with wilderness protection, demonstrating that 

environmental conservation is not held to a higher standard under the multiple-use mandate. This undermines BLM’s 

attempt to hold the single-species management of sage-grouse above the consideration of other resource uses on federal 

public lands.

All BLM emc0344GB

1323. ii. Multiple-Use Established under the NFMA NFMA is the primary federal statute governing the administration of national 

forests. As FLPMA does with respect to the management of public lands generally, NFMA establishes a multiple-use and 

sustainable yield policy with respect to the management of national forests.35 Specifically, NFMA calls for the coordination 

of the multiple diverse uses of National Forest System (NFS) lands, including "outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, 

wildlife and fish, and wilderness."36 Therefore, any measures, including the new sage-grouse management policy, that prefer 

All USFS emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-267

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

single-species management over multiple-use management on NFS lands conflict with the multiple-use mandate plainly stated 

in statute.

1324. Renewable energy development thus is an appropriate use of the federal public lands pursuant to the multiple-use and 

sustainable-yield mandates under FLPMA and NFMA. Nevertheless, the new sage-grouse management policy substantially 

limits opportunities for renewable energy growth given the limitation of all discrete anthropogenic disturbances on just 3 

percent of sage-grouse habitat across all land ownerships. This means that the renewable energy industry will have to 

compete with all other sources of anthropogenic disturbance for access to 3 percent or less of federal public lands containing 

sage-grouse habitat and, in some cases, this threshold may likely already have been met; in other words, no new uses may 

occur beyond what already exists in the landscape today.

All Both emc0344GB

1325. In sum, the strict single-species management being pursued by BLM and FS through the current sagegrouse policy is clearly 

a violation of the multiple-use policy that Congress has repeatedly declared in several federal statutes and the balancing of 

interests that those statutes require.42 In other words, to manage these public lands for the protection of a single species 

and categorically limit other interests on specified land is clearly inconsistent with the statutory intent of both FLPMA and 

NFMA. Consistent with these statutes, BLM and FS should manage federal public lands pursuant to the multiple-use and 

sustainable-yield mandates and not rule out certain activities on those lands, such as excluding important uses, such as 

renewable energy development, from certain areas.

All Both emc0344GB

1326. V. BLM Lacks the Authority under FLPMA and its Special Status Species Manual to Amend the Procedures for Obtaining a 

ROW Without Engaging in a Rulemaking BLM uses several sets of regulations to implement FLPMA and other laws. Most 

of the regulations that may affect BLM management guidance concerning sage-grouse management are found in section 43 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, although some, such as the Council of Environmental Quality regulations, are found in 

other portions of the CFR. The relevant regulations are listed below: • 43 C.F.R. Subpart C, Minerals Management 3000 

Series, contains regulatory authority for BLM operations, enforcement and reclamation of minerals actions on public lands. 

• 43 C.F.R. Subpart 4120, Grazing Management, contains the regulatory authority for grazing administration, use 

authorizations, permit terms and conditions for achieving resource condition objectives. Subparts 4140-4170 outline 

prohibited acts, enforcement, and penalties. Subpart 4180 is an example of how regulations provide direction for 

sage-grouse conservation. Within the scope of these grazing regulations, 43 CFR 4180.2(d), are included specific direction to 

the BLM State Directors to develop standards that among other things would address: o “(4) Habitat for endangered, 

threatened, proposed, candidate, or special status species; and; (5) Habitat quality for native plant and animal populations and 

communities...” In addition, Subpart 4180.2(e) requires development of guidelines to address: o “(9) Restoring, 

maintaining or enhancing habitats of Federal proposed, Federal candidate, and other special status species to promote their 

conservation.” These regulations, however, pertain to mineral management and grazing, not BLM’s consideration of ROWs 

for energy development. Therefore, these provisions cannot be relied upon to justify BLM’s authority to issue the IMs with 

respect to wind energy development, without going through notice and comment. While FLPMA does give BLM discretion 

to deny ROWs for renewable energy development based on the public interest, it does not provide a general definition of 

“public interest,”43 nor does it define the term within the ROW context. Rather, the statute provides some guidance when 

discussing the consideration of a ROW application, however. Under FLPMA, when determining whether an exchange of land 

All Both emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-268 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

is in the public interest, the Secretary must “[g]ive full consideration to better Federal land management and the needs of 

State and local people, including needs for lands for the economy, community expansion, recreation areas, food, fiber, 

minerals, and fish and wildlife. . . .”44 The terms and conditions that each ROW must contain also provide additional 

guidance as to what Congress meant when it directed BLM to consider the “public interest.” FLPMA directs BLM to include 

terms and conditions that “minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect 

the environment.”45 The statute also directs the Secretary to require such terms and conditions as he or she deems 

necessary to “protect Federal property and economic interests.”46 As these requirements illustrate, what constitutes the 

public interest requires a balancing of multiple factors. To balance these factors, BLM has promulgated regulations, which 

state: It is BLM’s objective to grant rights-of-way . . . to any qualified individual, business, or government entity and to direct 

and control the use of rights-of-way on public lands in a manner that: (a) Protects the natural resources associated with 

public lands and adjacent lands . . . ; (b) Prevents unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands; (c) Promotes the use of 

rights-of-way in common considering engineering and technological compatibility, national security, and land use plans; and 

(d) Coordinates . . . all BLM actions . . . with state and local governments, interested individuals, and appropriate quasi-public 

entities.47 BLM’s discretionary ability to apply such terms and conditions pertains even after a ROW has been granted.48 

The agency’s discretion is limited in that the “stipulations [may not be] either inconsistent with or tend to unreasonably 

encumber the proposed . . . project[].”49 For instance, in Shell Pipe Line Corp., BLM granted Shell a ROW that was 

subject to review after 20 years. Shell’s argument that FLPMA did not grant BLM broad enough authority to modify or revise 

a ROW once granted was rejected by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).50 The IBLA concluded that “clear[ly] . . . 

BLM may grant the right-of-way upon certain terms, conditions, and stipulations,” reasoning that the agency must “balance 

the interests of right-of-way applicants with other interests requiring consideration.”51 In another case, the IBLA noted that 

the stipulations imposed could not be unreasonably burdensome, but found that stipulations requiring prevention of water 

pollution and protection of fish did not impose an unreasonable burden.52 AWEA thus recognize that BLM has relatively 

broad discretionary authority to deny a ROW. In particular, the agency also has the statutory authority to impose terms and 

conditions on an application before it is approved as well the authority to modify the terms and conditions after approval. 

And, these modifications may include mitigating impacts to the environment. The scope of these modifications is limited, 

however, and there is nothing in the statute that allows an outright revocation of permit for any of the reasons specified in 

the IMs and the NTT Report. Moreover, the statute does not allow the type of generic limitations adopted in these 

documents, such as the 3 percent exclusion area, but rather permits terms and conditions to be imposed on an

application-by-application basis. Therefore, as the IMs add a substantive requirement to BLM’s existing authority under 

FLPMA and limit BLM’s existing discretionary authority under that act, BLM was required to follow the APA’s 

notice-and-comment procedures before making them effective. BLM also appears to justify its new procedures for 

considering ROW applications based on its policy set forth in a guidance document, the Special Status Species Management 

Manual (Special Species Manual).53 For instance, in the March 2010 IM, BLM states that “greater sage-grouse are BLM 

sensitive species that are to be managed to promote their conservation and to minimize the need for listing under the ESA, 

in accordance with the BLM’s special status species policy.”54 The Special Species Manual aims “to provide policy and 

guidance, consistent with appropriate laws, for the conservation of special status species of plants and animals, and the 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-269

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

ecosystems upon which they depend.”55 While the sage-grouse’s “warranted but precluded” status falls within the bounds 

of the manual’s ambit, the manual is merely an agency guidance document that cannot trump the duties imposed by the BLM’s 

own organic statute—FLPMA. As discussed, BLM public lands must be managed “on the basis of multiple use and sustained 

yield unless otherwise specified by law”56 and a guidance document cannot alter that statutory mandate. The Special Species 

Manual itself requires that its guidance be applied so as to be “consistent with appropriate laws,” further affirming that the 

BLM cannot rely on this policy statement as a means of ignoring its directive to manage public lands for a myriad of beneficial 

land uses. In other words, BLM cannot rely on its own agency guidance document to elevate single-species management 

above its statutorily imposed duty to promote multiple uses.

1327. VI. The Sage-Grouse IMs and NTT Report are Impermissible Rulemakings and Should Not Inform the Management Plan 

Revision Process The December 2011 IMs, the NTT Report, and the March 2010 IM violate the APA by imposing, without 

an opportunity for public review and comment, binding requirements on the wind industry not included in FLPMA and 

limiting the discretion of BLM staff and the states to carry out the directives of that statute. Specifically, these documents 

both bind wind projects (impose additional obligations) and restrict the BLM’s ability (namely, the Field Offices) to exercise 

discretion in deciding particular cases regarding ROWs for such projects. For the reasons discussed further below, given 

the absence of public input and the noncompliance with required rulemaking procedures, the IMs and the NTT Report 

should not be used to guide the content of the RMPs in the NOI process. As these documents have the effect of imposing 

additional substantive requirements, the agency must follow the APA’s notice-and-comment procedure and publish these 

IMs for notice and comment before making them effective and using them to determine amendments and revisions to land 

management plans. When agencies engage in the preparation of EISs, such as the NOI proposes to do, courts have 

cautioned that agencies may not define and constrain their actions in a way that skews that process to make it a foregone 

conclusion.57 The weight that BLM confers on the IMs and NTT Report, which, at most, should merely serve as guidance 

documents for that process, is not permitted under the APA because those documents actually determine the outcome of 

that process, and any related actions until that process is concluded. As we have previously conveyed to BLM, the practice 

of creating binding policy through IM’s, or other such means, is inefficient at best. Specifically, without seeking public 

comment: an agency is deprived of the invaluable input that stakeholders bring that would help inform its decision-making 

process with respect to crafting policies; stakeholders will likely negatively react to previously unknown policy changes; and 

BLM’s staff time will needlessly be wasted clarifying concerns of industry and others trying to correct fundamental flaws that 

likely would have been revealed, prior to adoption, through a comment process. A more appropriate way to develop 

broad-scale binding standards and/or obligations on an industry is to engage with stakeholders and seek their input prior to 

finalizing and implementing them. With that in mind, and as we previously recommended to BLM staff, we strongly encourage 

BLM to reconsider the process under which the binding policy changes in the IMs and NTT Report were issued and, at a 

minimum, reissue them to allow for at least a limited (e.g., 30-60 day) public comment period. As discussed below, and 

based on substantial court precedent, notwithstanding BLM’s professed reservation of discretion in these documents, the 

IMs and the NTT Report impose binding standards and/or obligations upon the wind industry, as well as others, and 

determine whether a ROW is granted or denied, or has conditions imposed. These documents, especially the Interim 

Management IM, contain mandatory language that is linked to receiving permits. And, there is no real discretion for BLM 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-270 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

personnel to come to a different conclusion with the procedures and conclusions outlined in them. In short, since the 

practical effect of these documents creates binding, rigid standards for BLM personnel to implement and the wind industry 

to follow, they should have been promulgated through notice-and-comment procedures, in which the industry, as well as 

others, would have had a chance to comment on them, consistent with the mandates of the APA.

1328. A. APA Notice-and-Comment Requirement APA Section 553 addresses the procedures that govern agency rulemaking. 

The main features of which include an agency’s duty to include a notice in the Federal Register apprising the public of a 

proposed rulemaking and then subsequently allowing “interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking 

through submission of written data, views, or arguments.”58 These procedural safeguards are imposed because agency 

regulations have “the force and effect of law.”59 The notice and comment requirements ensure that stakeholders are 

provided with an opportunity to contribute to an agency’s development of regulations, which upon approval will “grant 

rights, impose obligations, or produce other significant effects on private interests.”60 When a federal agency issues a 

directive concerning the future exercise of its discretionary power, for purposes of APA section 553, its directive will 

constitute either a substantive rule, for which notice-andcomment procedures are required, or a general statement of policy, 

for which they are not—the APA's "general policy statement" exception.61 In determining whether the December 2011 IMs, 

the NTT Report, and March 2010 IM qualify for that exception (do not need to be noticed for comment), the question, as 

suggested above, is whether they bind parties (impose any additional rights or obligations) and leave the BLM free to exercise 

discretion (will be determinative when deciding cases). Substantive rules that require notice and comment are commonly 

referred to as legislative rules because they are “the product of an exercise of delegated legislative power to make law 

through rules.”62 It is clear that BLM views the December 2011 IMs, the March 2010 IM, and the NTT Report as general 

statements of policy as they did not notice any of them for comment. However, because the label an agency gives to its 

exercise of administrative power is not determinative,63 the question is then whether the documents have the same effect 

as a legislative rule, in which case BLM must follow notice-and-comment procedures. Specifically, for these documents to be 

considered a nonlegislative rule and avoid the APA’s notice-andcomment procedures, they must fall into one of the following 

three buckets: interpretative rule, policy statement, or a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice.64 Thus, 

determining whether the IMs and the NTT Report should have followed notice-and-comment procedures requires a 

three-part analysis.

All BLM emc0344GB

1329. i. The IMs and NTT Report Are Not Rules of BLM Organization, Procedure, or Practice Rules of agency organization, 

procedure or practice relate to the particular nature of the agency, such as rules that prescribe the manner in which the 

parties present themselves or their viewpoints.65 Because the December 2011 IMs, the March 2010 IM, and the NTT 

Report do not define particular procedures and practices parties must follow when interacting with either BLM or FS, they 

clearly do not fit within this exception.

All BLM emc0344GB

1330. ii. The IMs and NTT Report Are Neither Interpretative Rules Nor Policy Statements With respect to whether the guidance 

document falls into the remaining categories, an interpretive rule or a policy statement, courts have emphasized the 

difference between the two.66 Although the APA provides no definition of interpretive rules or policy statements,67 the 

1947 Attorney General's Manual68 on the APA defined interpretive rules as "rules or statements issued by an agency to 

advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,"69 and policy statements as 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-271

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

"statements issued by an agency to advise the public prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise 

a discretionary power."70 In Syncor International Corp. v. Shalala,71 the court further added clarity to this distinction, 

framing interpretive rules as those rules which "reflect an agency's construction of a statute that has been entrusted to the

agency to administer"72 and policy statements as pronouncements by which "an agency simply lets the public know its 

current enforcement or adjudicatory approach."73 Interpretive rules, therefore, clarify an agency's interpretation of an 

existing statute or legislative rule without imposing substantive changes. Policy statements, on the other hand, are intended 

to provide the public with a sense of an agency's position on an issue. One could argue that these three documents are 

interpretive rules because they explain BLM’s authority to deny ROWs under FLPMA. It could also be argued that they are 

policy statements because they announce the ways in which BLM intends to conduct its affairs with respect to land 

management and sage-grouse. However, for the reasons discussed below, these arguments fail upon closer inspection, and 

it is clear that these documents constitute legislative rules that should be noticed for comment.

1331. a. Documents as Interpretive Rules Courts have developed a three-prong test, outlined below, to determine whether an 

interpretive rule has a legal effect and should have been issued legislatively. First, a court asks "whether in the absence of the 

rule there would not be an adequate legislative basis for enforcement action or other agency action to confer benefits or 

ensure the performance of duties."74 Next, a court must determine "whether the agency has explicitly invoked its general 

legislative authority."75 Finally, a court considers "whether the rule effectively amends a prior legislative rule."76 If any of the 

three inquiries are answered in the affirmative, it is a legislative and, not an interpretive rule.77 When applying this test to 

the December 2011 IMs, the March 2010 IM, and the NTT Report, the question is whether, in the absence of these 

documents, there would not be an adequate legislative basis for agency action to confer benefits or ensure the performance 

of duties. As discussed above, BLM does not have the statutory authority to manage for a single species, as FLPMA and 

NFMA have multiple use mandates. While sage-grouse constitutes a special status species under the Special Species Manual, 

that designation inand-of-itself does not trump BLM’s mandate under FLPMA, as the manual is just a general policy statement

and not a regulation.78 Moreover, FLPMA does not contain concrete language that would allow for BLM to impose the 

binding restrictions set forth in the IMs and the NTT Report. Thus, there is a legislative gap between the IMs and the NTT 

Report and the performance of BLM’s specific duties. The next question is whether the agency has explicitly invoked its 

general legislative authority. When describing the purpose of its National Strategy, BLM stated that “FLPMA provides the 

basic authority for BLM’s multiple use management of all resources on the public lands. One of BLM’s many responsibilities 

under the FLPMA is to manage public lands for the benefit of wildlife species and the ecosystems upon which they 

depend.”79 As noted, the March 2010 IM states that it is supplementing the National Strategy, and the December 2011 IMs 

state that they are, in turn, supplementing the March 2010 IM. Therefore, all these documents are essentially relying on 

oblique references to the general legislative authority in FLPMA and the Special Species Manual to explain their power to 

amend FLPMA through the IMs and the NTT Report. But, neither FLPMA nor the Special Species Manual gives BLM the 

tangible authority to impose the restrictions contained in these documents. Under the third prong, if a rule effectively 

amends a prior legislative rule or a prior interpretive rule, it should be promulgated legislatively. Here, the IMs all build upon 

the National Strategy to create, as the March 2010 IM states, a “comprehensive Bureau-wide policy for the protection of 

sage-grouse populations and the conservation of habitat on a landscape scale.”80 It would be hard to argue that these IMs 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-272 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

merely clarify the National Strategy, which was issued legislatively, because each of the IMs clearly state that they 

“supplement” either the National Strategy or a prior IM. As all three of the prongs are answered in the affirmative, it is clear 

that the IMs are legislative rules, not interpretive, and should have been noticed for comment. In sum, the IMs do not 

interpret sufficiently concrete statutory language from FLPMA, or any other statute or regulation, to qualify as interpretive. 

Put simply, these documents do not constitute interpretive rules because BLM is explicitly invoking its statutory authority 

and setting out substantive new rules instead of interpreting previous legislative rules. If Congress had already acted 

legislatively, it could have exercised its own delegated legislative authority. However, since the IMs and the NTT Report do 

not stay within the language of FLPMA, they add substantive content to the statute.

1332. b. Documents As Policy Statements Policy statements may not bind the public or the issuing agency.81 Thus, if a directive 

is meant to bind, or has the effect of binding a private party or the issuing agency, it does not fit within the APA’s exception 

for policy statements and must follow the APA’s rulemaking procedures. When a document is couched in mandatory 

language,82 or in terms indicating that it will be regularly applied,83 a binding intent is strongly evidenced. To determine if the 

IMs and the NTT Report are indeed policy statements that can avoid APA procedures, it is necessary to determine: (1) 

whether they are intended to bind; and (2) if not, whether they bind parties as a practical matter. It is clear that these IMs and 

the NTT Report are not policy statements because they have the effect of binding BLM, states, and private parties. In 

McLouth Steel Products Corporation v. Thomas,84 the court found that the EPA violated the APA’s rulemaking procedures 

when it described an agency-devised computational model in a Federal Register notice as a document that would dictate the 

agency’s actions in subsequent cases. The court observed that the “language in that notice strongly suggests that EPA will 

treat the model as a binding norm” and that “EPA referred to it as the ‘quantitative approach’ that ‘will be used to predict the 

level of the various toxicants which could migrate to environmental receptors.’”85 In parsing the language of the Federal 

Register notice, the court noted that “[t]he use of the word ‘will’ suggests the rigor of a rule, not the pliancy of a policy.”86 

In the case at hand, BLM’s NOI similarly uses the phrase “will be consistent” to convey the relationship between RMP 

amendments and BLM’s National Strategy, thereby evidencing a similar violation of the APA. In general, a nonlegislative 

statement is binding as a practical matter if the agency treats it the same way it treats a legislative rule—that is, if the agency 

treats it as dispositive of the issues that it addresses—or leads affected parties to believe it will treat the document that way. 

This is called the "impact on agencies" test, which asks not whether the rule impacts regulated parties but whether the 

agency treats the rule as binding. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, the distinction between policy statements and 

substantive rules "turns on an agency's intention to bind itself to a particular legal policy position."87 In short, policy

statements are found to violate notice and comment requirements when “the commands of the [g]uidance [d]ocument 

indicate that it has the force of law.”88 While the requirements set forth in the Interim Management IM are only in place 

on an “interim” basis “while the BLM develops and decides how to best incorporate long-term conservation measures,”89 

this does not mitigate the fact that they are currently binding. Since the Interim Management IM indicates that it will be 

regularly applied across multiple program areas, is linked to receiving permits, and there is no real discretion for BLM 

personnel to come to a different conclusion with the policies set forth therein, the practical effect of the IM is to create 

immediate binding, rigid standards for BLM personnel to implement and industry to follow. As such, it places broad-scale 

binding standards and/or obligations on the wind industry, as well as others, in violation of the APA. The binding effect of the 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-273

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Interim Management IM has already been evidenced by the fact that it was cited as a justification for deferring consideration 

on a ROW for a wind company.90 The Planning Direction IM also explicitly provides directives, in accordance with the 

conservation measures identified in the NTT Report, to be implemented by BLM in its consideration of the revisions to the 

land use plans now underway. The NOI also indicates that approved revisions “will be consistent” with the National 

Strategy, which is supplemented by the Planning Direction IM. Therefore, it is not sufficient to simply allow public comment 

on the plan revisions in the NOI. BLM must allow for public comment on the IMs and NTT Report as well, since it will 

determine the substantive outcome of those revisions. A document will also be considered to have practical binding effect 

before it is actually applied if the affected private parties are reasonably led to believe that failure to conform will bring 

adverse consequences, such as an enforcement action91 or denial of an application.92 The same holds true if it binds an 

agency’s decision making or if it binds state action. The IMs and the NTT Report do not discuss the consequences a private 

party will face for failure to heed the policy, as the policy seems to be targeted more towards BLM staff and states.93 

However, they clearly authorize BLM to delay or deny an application or to impose certain terms and conditions if BLM 

determines that a proposed energy development project area includes PPH and PGH. As such, it would be reasonable for a 

private party to believe that failure to adhere to the newly defined habitat areas and other procedures detailed in the 

documents will carry negative consequences. It is also clear that the procedures set forth in the documents determine 

whether BLM staff or states will grant a ROW. It is reasonable to assume that states will incorporate BLM’s IMs and the NTT 

Report into their conservation plans. States have played an integral role in developing the forthcoming guidance. In 2000, 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (“WAFWA”), FS, FWS and BLM signed an Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) that provides for federal, state and local cooperation to coordinate planning, habitat and population 

mapping, and evaluation and restoration of sage-grouse populations.94 A state’s failure to abide by the terms of the 

forthcoming guidance could be viewed as a violation of the MOU. For the reasons stated above, the IMs and NTT Report 

function as legislative rules and should be promulgated as such.

1333. B. The IMs Constitute a Rulemaking That Should Have Undergone NEPA Analysis The IMs governing sage-grouse 

conservation satisfy the test for federal action that is subject to NEPA review. The failure to complete this review shielded

the IMs’ provisions from scrutiny, specifically with respect to the evaluation of other reasonable alternatives that could have 

achieved BLM’s conservation objectives while not overly burdening wind energy development. The wind industry’s 

contributions in mitigating climate change also received no analysis or consideration as a mitigating effect due to the fact that 

these documents were not subject to NEPA. Given these shortcomings, the IMs should not be relied upon in formulating the 

RMPs.

All BLM emc0344GB

1334. i. The IMs Qualify as Federal Action for Which NEPA Review Should Have Been Completed NEPA review is required when 

federal activity satisfies a three-part test that consists of: (1) a proposal, (2) on legislation or some other “major federal 

action,” and (3) which, if implemented, has the potential to “significantly” affect the environment.95 NEPA’s implementing 

regulations define proposal as “that stage in the development of an action when an agency subject to the Act has a goal and 

is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects can be 

meaningfully evaluated.”96 The IMs squarely fall within this definition since upon issuance they established interim and 

long-tern conservation measures tailored towards the goal of rehabilitating sage-grouse populations. The “major federal 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-274 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

action” element of the test is defined as including “actions with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject

to Federal control and responsibility.”97 The regulations further elaborate on the type of agency activities that constitute 

major federal actions, specifically, referencing the adoption of policies and plans, “such as official documents prepared or 

approved by federal agencies which guide or prescribe alternative uses of Federal resources, upon which future agency 

actions will be based.”98 Both the substance and the respective titles of the IM documents, which include the words 

“Management Policies”99 and “Planning Strategy,”100 satisfy the major federal action requirement. The final issue related 

to the triggering of the NEPA requirement is whether the federal action has a “significant environmental impact.”101 NEPA’s 

implementing regulations include a comprehensive definition for “significantly” and characterize that term as standing for the 

“severity of [the] impact” caused by the federal action.102 Important factors for assessing significance include the “unique 

characteristics of the geographic area,”103 “the degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects,”104 and whether endangered or threatened species are implicated.105 Applied to the sage-grouse IMs, all 

of these factors contribute to a finding of significance as (1) the lands at issue possess unique wind features, (2) the interim 

measures serve to set the tone for the final conservation measures that will be implemented, and (3) while the sage-grouse 

is not currently listed as a threatened or endangered species, the purpose of the federal action at issue here is to prevent 

such a listing. In further parsing the “significant environmental impact” language, the regulations state that “effects and 

impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous” and that they include ecological impacts.106 The Ims focus on 

sage-grouse habitat management, thereby having a direct ecological impact. And, while the IMs are designed to promote 

beneficial environmental management of sage-grouse habitat, this intention does not prevent them from having a significant 

environmental impact nor exempt them from a NEPA analysis. Specifically, the regulations state that “[i]mpacts . . . may be 

both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be 

beneficial.”107 Additionally, considering the host of environmental benefits that accompany wind energy and the 

technology’s role in displacing traditional energy sources that consume massive amounts of water (which in the arid western 

states is a limited resource) and produce harmful emissions (including CO2 which arguably is one of the leading contributors 

to climate change, which, in turn, is resulting in prolonged periods of drought in the West, all of which negatively impacts 

sage-grouse and their critical habitats), the IMs and the barriers they create to wind energy development pose significant 

adverse environmental impacts. The Ninth Circuit has also recognized that in certain situations where there is a long history

of human intervention in the environment, a federal conservation action that limits human activities may constitute an 

environmental impact that requires the preparation of an EIS. Specifically, the court stated; Because human intervention, in 

the form of forest management, has been part of the fabric of our national forests for so long, we conclude that, in the 

context of this unusual case, the reduction in human intervention that would result from the Roadless Rule actually does 

alter the environmental status quo...the Forest Service’s Roadless initiative thus required an EIS under NEPA.108 This 

rationale could also be applied to the case at hand, in which the sage-grouse December 2011 IMs serve to restrict 

longstanding human activities on BLM lands. The NOI here was issued to help guide the preparation of an EIS. NEPA 

implementing regulations specifically address what actions are allowed during the time period in which an EIS is being 

prepared, and state that “[w]hile work on a required program environmental impact statement is in progress and the action 

is not covered by an existing program statement, agencies shall not undertake in the interim any major Federal action 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-275

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

covered by the program which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.”109 Applied here, the 

December 2011 IMs do not fall into any of the exemptions associated with this rule and constitute an independent action 

with an environmental impact for which the appropriate NEPA analysis was not completed.

1335. ii. The Implications Associated with the IMs’ NEPA Noncompliance At its core, “NEPA ensures that an agency’s approval 

of a project is a fully informed and wellconsidered decision.110 Sound federal decision making is achieved through the 

evaluation of alternative actions, which is considered “the heart of the environmental impact statement” and central to the 

purpose of NEPA review.111 Here, the IMs imposed conservation measures without consideration of alternative 

approaches that could have achieved similar results while not imposing such stringent restrictions on wind energy 

development. NEPA requires a discussion of the effects on air and water and other natural systems.112 Therefore, any 

federal action that deters the development of emission-free energy sources, such as wind farms, which help to reduce fossil 

fuel dependence and stem climate change, should be fully explored pursuant to a NEPA review. Here, no such climate change 

analysis accompanied the issuance of the IMs. Courts also have acknowledged the appropriateness of NEPA reviews 

considering climate change and its associated impact on wildlife. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne,113 the 

court upheld the sufficiency of an EA partially on the basis that it “acknowledge[d] climate change and enumerated its long 

term effects on polar bears.” The NOI at issue here similarly is concerned with wildlife preservation, and despite the 

difficulty of determining with precision the negative impacts of climate change on sage-grouse populations, the NEPA 

framework requires this factor to be analyzed and considered. Given the posture of this case and the fact that the NOI 

itself is addressing the preparation of an EIS for sage-grouse conservation, completing a NEPA review on the previously 

issued IMs at this stage would not be useful. However, considering the December 2011 IMs’ noncompliance with NEPA and 

the aforementioned associated issues, these documents should not be used to inform any future sage-grouse conservation 

planning.

All BLM emc0344GB

1336. A. EIS “Purpose and Need” Statement Should Incorporate Principles of Multiple Use and Sustained Yield NEPA’s 

implementing regulations require that all EISs include a “purpose and need” statement that details “the underlying purpose 

and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.”114 This 

introductory statement of the EIS is intended to reasonably define the objectives of the federal action being undertaken and 

should be drafted in a manner that does “not arbitrarily or capriciously narrow the scope of the statement.”115 

Appropriately defining the objectives of the federal action is essential for framing the remainder of the EIS and for 

determining which alternatives are reasonable and require exploration.116 The “purpose and need” statement of any EIS 

accompanying proposed land use plans should specifically incorporate principles of multiple use and sustained yield, 

consistent with the above definition of “multiple use.”117 The related principle of “sustained yield” stands for “the 

achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable 

resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.”118 While protection of the sage-grouse is driving this federal 

action, “[a]n agency may not define the objectives of its actions in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative 

from among the environmentally benign ones in the agency’s power would accomplish the goals of the agency’s action, and 

the EIS would become a foreordained formality.”119 Based on this directive, the purpose and need statement should 

acknowledge the goal of rehabilitating sage-grouse populations while balancing the other productive uses of the land that 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-276 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

BLM and FS are required to facilitate by law. Courts have noted that the most important factor in guiding the EIS purpose 

and need statement is that “an agency should always consider the views of Congress, expressed, to the extent that the 

agency can determine them, in the agency’s statutory authorization to act, as well as in other congressional directives.”120 

Applied here, as discussed above, there are a host of legislative mandates that require the federal lands at issue in this 

proceeding to be managed to promote multiple use and sustained yield. FLPMA provides, with respect to land management, 

that it should be conducted “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.”121 RMPs, 

such as those that the NOI proposes to revise, are to be implemented in accordance with multiple use and sustained yield 

principles,122 along with the plans that govern units of the National Forest System.123 As noted, courts have reinforced 

the legislative mandate in favor of federal lands being managed according to principles of multiple use and sustained yield.124 

Such language affirms that any EIS’s “purpose and need” statement should focus on the diverse uses that federal lands should 

promote, including renewable energy development. In characterizing FLPMA, one court called the landmark legislation as “an 

attempt by Congress to balance the use of the public lands by interests as diverse as the lands themselves.”125 While 

sage-grouse conservation must be pursued, it should not overly burden the advancement of other productive activities. 

Federal law makes clear that an EIS governing land management plans must “recognize competing values.”126 The principles 

of multiple use and sustained yield should play a central role in framing the EISs and SEISs considering that both BLM and FS

maintain multiple use mandates for their land that trump single-species management.

1337. B. The Reasonable Range of Alternatives Addressed in the EIS Should be Limited to Those Alternatives That Are Technically 

and Economically Feasible with Respect to Wind Energy Under NEPA, federal agencies are directed to “study, develop, and 

describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources.”127 NEPA does not command an exploration of all potential alternative 

actions, but only “those that are practical and feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common 

sense.”128 A “rule of reason test” governs which alternatives should be explored pursuant to a NEPA analysis,129 and 

options that are impractical and ineffective.130 For instance, siting wind energy developments in areas that lack wind would 

not pass such a test. In Citizens Commission to Save Our Canyons v. U.S. Forest Service,131 the court rejected plaintiff’s 

claim that the agency failed to address the reasonable range of alternatives in its EIS when it failed to evaluate the option of 

siting a resort facility underground on a mountain owned by the federal government. This alternative was not appropriate for 

evaluation in the Forest Service’s EIS because siting the facility underground “was not regarded as technologically or 

economically feasible.”132 Similarly in City of New York v. Department of Transportation,133 the federal action at issue 

centered on safety regulations to carry nuclear fuel by interstate highway, thereby prompting the court to find that “the 

Department was not required to discuss the unreasonable alternative of carrying nuclear fuel around New York City by 

barge.” The established requirement that NEPA review only encompasses reasonable alternatives cannot be reconciled 

with the direction in the Interim Management IM, which states that siting alternatives should be included that are outside of

the sage-grouse’s PPH, even if wind resources are not present outside those areas. For example, just as it was unreasonable 

and not feasible to site the facility at issue in Citizens Commission to Save Our Canyons beneath the surface of a mountain, 

so too would it be inappropriate to consider an alternative that sites wind development in an area that lacks commercially 

feasible wind generation capacity or would require miles of ROWs for new transmission lines. Given this legal backdrop, 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-277

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the following provisions as found in the NTT Report and the IMs constitute measures that are technically or economically 

infeasible: 1) No more than 3 percent disturbance of PPH; 2) 70 percent of PPH land cover to provide “adequate sagebrush 

habitat”; 3) Prohibiting any upgrading of existing routes that would change route categories (road, primitive road, or trail) or 

capacity unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on sage-grouse habitat, is necessary for motorist safety, or 

eliminates the need to construct a new road; and 4) PPH becomes exclusion areas for new ROW permits. Other 

potentially infeasible measures of concern include: 1) Power line siting and avoidance measures (e.g., requirements to bury 

or flag power lines); and 2) Facility siting and avoidance measures (e.g., no accommodations for locating facilities near 

distribution lines or inflexible minimum siting distances from leks).

1338. C. The EIS Should Consider Alternative Design Features and Mitigation Measures in Lieu of the Exclusion Area Approach 

While an EIS should not address infeasible alternatives, the essence of an EIS is a robust exploration of the feasible alternative 

actions and mitigation measures.134 While the exclusion area approach has been put forth as one of the primary means of 

achieving sage-grouse conservation,135 the EISs should instead focus on more effective alternative approaches that address 

design features and mitigation measures. Design features and mitigation are distinct but related concepts. Design features 

are specific measures or practices that comprise an alternative action, while mitigation encompasses separate strategies that 

seek to “reduce or eliminate effects of the proposed action or alternatives.”136 Examples of design features include standard

operating procedures, stipulations, and best management practices.137 As to mitigation, NEPA requires that an EIS contain 

“a reasonably complete discussion of possible mitigation measures” and that they “be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure

that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated.” 138 NEPA implementing regulations recognize a diverse set of 

mitigation classes which include “[c]ompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments” and “[r]ectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.”139 The EISs 

should include alternative design features and mitigation measures that: 1) recognize sage-grouse habitat quality and 

protection in proportion to potential sage-grouse conservation; 2) recognize the efforts of local, regional, statewide, and 

private conservation initiatives; and 3) provide for compensatory on-site and off-site mitigation (such as mitigation banks). 

We also note that if the BLM is going to conduct subregional EISs (rather than regional EISs), the subregions should be based 

on sage-grouse populations and not state borders.

All Both emc0344GB

1339. D. EISs Should Recognize Existing Rights, Permits, and Proposals, Especially Pending Late-Stage ROW Applications so as to 

Not Upset Investment-backed Expectations of Companies, Lenders, and Investors Considering NEPA’s emphasis that 

federal decision making be guided by a robust body of information from the stakeholders impacted by a federal action, the 

courts “have held that agencies must acknowledge private goals” in EISs.140 With respect to the section of an EIS in which 

an agency defines the objectives associated with the federal action at issue, the Tenth Circuit has found that “[a]gencies also 

are precluded from completely ignoring a private applicant’s objectives.”141 Based on this recognition of the role of private 

interests in the preparation of an EIS, the sage-grouse EIS at issue here should recognize the existing rights, permits, and 

pending late-stage ROW applications held by wind energy developers who have made investments based on the current 

sage-grouse regulatory landscape. Although there are distinctions to be made between a typical regulatory takings 

circumstance and the impact of an EIS on wind developers with projects in progress, the “reasonable, investment-backed 

expectations [that] are an element of every regulatory takings case”142 likewise should be considered with respect to the 

All Both emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-278 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

crafting of the sage-grouse EIS. Additionally, despite the fact that the wind industry is a private interest, the industry’s 

contribution to the nation’s environmental and renewable energy objectives are closely aligned with the public interest at 

large, thereby providing additional grounds for not compromising the investment-backed expectations of industry 

participants.

1340. VIII. The NTT report should not be considered because BLM failed to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

When the Department of the Interior (DOI) chartered the Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee in October 2007, 

it did so explicitly under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).146 Therefore, DOI is certainly familiar with FACA, 

and should have applied the same statutory construct to the NTT. Nevertheless, it appears that BLM has failed to comply 

with that act.

All BLM emc0344GB

1341. A. The NTT is an “advisory committee” under FACA The NTT is an “advisory committee” under FACA, as the statutory 

definition implies. An “advisory committee” includes: [A]ny committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task 

force, or other similar group..., which is...(C) established or utilized by one or more agencies, in the interest of obtaining 

advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government, except that 

such term excludes (i) any committee that is composed wholly of full-time, or permanent part-time, officers or employees 

of the Federal Government, and (ii) any committee that is created by the National Academy of Sciences or the National 

Academy of Public Administration.147 The NTT is a “team,” which is a group similar to a “committee, board, commission, 

council, conference, panel, task force,”148 that BLM created “to ensure BLM [sage-grouse] management actions are effective 

and based on the best available science.”149 In order for a committee, or team, to be “established” by an agency, it must 

be “directly established” by the agency.150 The Supreme Court has “squarely rejected an expansive interpretation of the 

words, reading ‘established’ and ‘utilized’ narrowly to prevent FACA from sweeping more broadly than Congress 

intended.”151 BLM’s National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Charter (Charter) directly established the NTT to 

“serve as a scientific and technical forum to . . . Provide specialized sources of expertise not otherwise available,” among 

other advisory functions.152 The Charter also explicitly states: “Non-BLM members of the NTT serve in an advisory 

capacity only, and their participation does not constitute endorsement of final [BLM] recommendations or decisions.”153 In 

other words, it is clear that the NTT was created to give management advice and recommendations to BLM, bureau of 

DOI, a Federal Government agency, making it subject to FACA. The NTT is not excluded from the definition of “advisory 

committee.” First, it consists of resource specialists and scientists from both federal and state agencies, including fourteen 

BLM employees, two Natural Resources Conservation Service employees, one USFWS employee, one U.S. Geological 

Survey employee, and five employees of State fish and wildlife agencies.154 Second, it was created by BLM, rather than the 

National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Public Administration. Thus, because the NTT does not fit either 

exemption provided in the statutory definition, and otherwise satisfies the elements of an “advisory committee,” it is indeed

an advisory committee subject to FACA.155 Finally, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) amendments to FACA 

do not exempt the NTT from the requirements of FACA either. UMRA exempts intergovernmental communications from 

FACA where: (1)[M]eetings are held exclusively between Federal officials and elected officers of State, local, and tribal 

governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) acting in their official capacities; and (2) 

such meetings are solely for the purposes of exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the management or 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-279

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

implementation of Federal programs established pursuant to public law that explicitly or inherently share intergovernmental 

responsibilities or administration.156 NTT communications do not meet either prong of this exemption provision. With 

respect to the first prong, it is true that Federal officials undoubtedly served on the NTT.157 However, the five State 

government employees on the NTT are scientists in State fish and wildlife agencies, not elected officers of the State 

government.158 Furthermore, there is no evidence in the NTT Report or in the that shows that these State wildlife 

scientists had any authority to act on behalf of the States’ elected officers, as required under UMRA. Similarly, in Idaho 

Wool Growers Assoc. v. Shafer,159 the court found that there was no evidence in the record to suggest that non-federal 

wildlife professionals and scientists were either elected State officers or authorized to act on the elected Idaho Governor’s

behalf.160 The Governors unequivocally stated that they had no recollection of designating or authorizing any State of Idaho 

employee to act on their behalf as a member of the committees-in-question in that case.161 Likewise, without more, it 

cannot be assumed that the State employees on the NTT were designated to act on elected officials' behalf.162 Therefore, 

the NTT fails to satisfy the first prong of this exemption provision. The NTT also fails to meet the second prong because 

its meetings were not related to “the management or implementation of Federal programs established pursuant to public 

law.”163 At the time of the NTT meetings,164 held prior to the NOI release, no federal mandate had been established or 

imposed. FWS found the sage-grouse to be “warranted but precluded,” meaning that the species “warrants the protection 

of the Endangered Species Act but that listing the species at this time is precluded by the need to address higher priority 

species first.”165 Thus, any action with respect to the sage-grouse under the ESA has been deferred. So with respect to 

public law, Federal sage-grouse programs were in a state of non-action when the NTT convened. Because no Federal 

program established pursuant to public law existed, the NTT’s communications did not fall under the scope of the second 

prong of the exemption provision. Thus, the FACA exemption under UMRA does not apply to the NTT. Accordingly, the 

NTT remains subject to FACA.

1342. B. BLM Committed FACA Procedural Violations in Establishing and Conducting the NTT In enacting FACA, Congress 

declared that “standards and uniform procedures should govern the establishment, operation, administration, and duration 

of advisory committees”166 and that “the public should be kept informed with respect to the number, purpose, 

membership, activities, and cost of advisory committees.”167 In accordance with these declarations, FACA requires the 

publication of a Federal Register notice when an advisory committee is established.168 Despite this mandate, no Federal 

Register notice was published with respect to the preparation of the NTT. Another central principle imposed by FACA is 

to “require the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and 

the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.”169 This requirement of balanced participation was not adhered 

to in the preparation of the NTT. According to the NTT, members of the team included personnel from “the BLM, State Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies, USFWS, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).”170 

Despite the diverse balance of federal agency personnel represented, no private interests from industry or the NGO arena 

were present, thereby preventing the committee from considering the requisite range of perspectives. In Idaho Wool 

Growers Association v. Schafer, the court found noncompliance with FACA and ordered that the “Committees’ findings 

and/or conclusions” are not to be relied upon by the FS with respect to any future agency decisions.171 Similarly here, due 

to the FACA violations referenced above, the BLM and FS cannot rely on the NTT’s findings and conclusions with respect to 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-280 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the land use plan amendments addressing sage-grouse conservation, as it did not comply with FACA.

1343. IX. The Conservation Measures Contemplated by the NOI are Even More Restrictive Than Those That Would Take Effect 

if the Sage-grouse was Listed as an Endangered Species The NOI indicates that the objective of modifying the RMPs and 

LMPs is to avoid a potential listing of the sage-grouse under the ESA.172 Both of BLM’s associated IMs similarly indicate the 

importance of preventing further sage-grouse population declines so that the stringent wildlife protections of the ESA do not 

have to be invoked and do not unnecessarily impede uses of public lands.173 While AWEA recognizes the importance of 

taking immediate steps to protect the sage-grouse and does not want to see the species listed, we do think it is important to 

point out that the conservation measures proposed by the NTT Report are ironically more burdensome and stringent than 

the conservation scheme that would be triggered if there were an ESA listing. Considering the ESA’s role as a species 

protection statute of last resort, this should not be the case. For example, under the ESA, project developers may apply for 

an incidental take permit (ITP) and pending satisfaction of the permit criteria may receive immunity for the take of wildlife

associated with the permitted activity.174 The conference report addressing the 1982 ESA amendments that established the 

ITP recognized the importance of providing project developers with certainty and flexibility, stating that “[i]n order to 

provide sufficient incentives for the private sector to participate in the development of such long-term conservation plans, 

plans which may involve the expenditure of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, adequate assurances must be 

made to the financial and development communities.”175 More specifically, the incidental take permit may be issued if the 

“taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.”176 The ESA provides for a 

holistic evaluation of the permit applicant’s activity by requiring the submission of a habitat conservation plan that allows the 

applicant to demonstrate the mitigation measures and other means of minimizing wildlife impacts.177 Conversely, with 

respect to the sage-grouse, the NTT Report provides for a blanket prohibition on wind energy development in PPH areas in 

which the 3 percent disturbance threshold has already been met.178 Another quantitative restriction mandates that PPH 

areas must be managed or restored so that at least 70 percent of the land cover provides sagebrush habitat for the 

sage-grouse.179 These inflexible numeric criteria would effectively halt wind energy development in many circumstances, 

without even providing industry the opportunity to demonstrate the potential mitigation benefits that project development 

plans could bestow on sage-grouse populations. The NTT expressly adopts an “exclusion area” approach barring wind 

development from large expanses of land,180 while the ESA provides for no such absolute bans. The fact that the 

development restrictions contemplated by the NOI are more inflexible and provide less certainty than those that would 

arise pursuant to an ESA listing reveals the need for agencies to pursue a more balanced conservation strategy that preserves

the sage-grouse while not halting productive renewable energy development on public lands.

All BLM emc0344GB

1344. A. The Mapping of Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat for Sagegrouse Is Inconsistent And Overly 

Broad The concept of delineating PPH and PGH for sage-grouse is generally sound, in that the sage-grouse is a landscape 

species and thus roams over a very large area to meet its seasonal needs for survival. However, the current application of 

that concept by BLM is inconsistent and unjustifiably broad. BLM does not provide a quantitative definition of PPH. Due to 

the lack of appropriate funding, most sage-grouse populations have generally not been well studied, and to the extent 

sage-grouse populations have been studied, the quality of data varies for each population. Each state BLM office has therefore 

individually established its own PPH maps, using varying degrees of available population data. In states that have not 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-281

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

completed their delineations of PPH, BLM relied on the analysis by Doherty et al.181 to map PPH. Doherty et al.’s analysis 

is based on locations and counts of leks, plus buffers of 6.4 to 8.5 miles which are presumed to include the majority of nesting 

habitat. Late brood-rearing and winter concentration areas are not specifically included in the analysis, as some populations 

are migratory and may nest or spend winter many tens of miles from leks. Given this lack of population data, the subsequent 

presumptions made when mapping PPH, and the diversity of PPH delineation among states, the current definition of PPH is 

inconsistent and, in turn, unworkable. Furthermore, most PPH maps appear to be developed without regard to actual 

habitat on the ground, resulting in the incorporation of non-habitat within the PPH areas. For instance, the initial PPH maps 

developed for Idaho include intensive row crop agriculture. And, in Oregon, an area that is designated as PPH is a 

contaminated former mercury mine on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund list. Given that there are 

many such areas within the PPH that do not provide habitat for sage-grouse, BLM’s current definition of PPH is not only 

vague and inconsistent but also overly broad. Such a broad delineation of PPH will unnecessarily limit productive legitimate 

economic uses of these federal public lands. To make the delineation of PPH more consistent and more narrowly tailored, 

we find that the likely best areas are those encompassing 75 percent of the breeding density of the species, as depicted by 

Doherty et al. (2010). If each sage-grouse population’s PPH is measured using this Doherty et al. (2010) analysis, the results

will be more consistent across all populations and states. Importantly, this analysis should be augmented with site-specific 

information detailing actual habitat on the ground to ensure that the PPH and GPH does not include non-habitat areas or 

habitat that is not critical to sage-grouse year-round. As noted, by BLM’s definition, PGH “comprises areas of occupied 

seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat.”182 Given that this definition is based on PPH, which we 

previously suggested is inconsistent and overly broad, it follows that the definition of PGH, too, is inconsistent and overly 

broad. There are many areas of various kinds of development within PGH that do not provide habitat for sage-grouse. 

Both PPH and PGH maps should be amended in the RMPs based on site-specific data. Such amendments have already been 

made in Wyoming and Oregon in response to public outcry regarding the original PPH and PGH designations in those states. 

Until the RMPs are amended, PPH and PGH delineation should be subject to site-specific, in the field evaluation as to their 

importance to local sage-grouse instead of simply prohibiting development. This would allow for the RMP amendment 

process to avoid blanket prohibition of wind development in large areas without appropriate site-specific evaluations first.

1345. B. The Conservation Measures in the Interim Management IM are Not Supported By Evidence in the Record The Interim 

Management IM states that “[f]or ROWs where the total project disturbance from the ROW and any connected actions is 

less than one linear mile, or 2 acres of disturbance, develop mitigation measures.”183 That IM establishes a process for 

considering projects with an impact greater than this threshold. However, there is no evidence offered in the record which 

would allow for a determination as to whether these thresholds are biologically sound. And, we are not aware of any other 

sources that provide support for these thresholds. Even though there is no evidence to support these limitations, it is clear 

that these are very restrictive criteria that would eliminate almost any kind of development. As stated in the Interim 

Management IM, the standard for acceptance of mitigation is that they must “[c]umulatively maintain or enhance Greater 

Sage-grouse and its habitat.”184 This standard is not well-defined. And, it begs the question of how should enhancement of 

either the species population (assuming stability or increasing population is the goal) or the quality of the habitat be 

monitored. The costs and timeframe of monitoring will depend on the data needed. Major habitat loss has occurred from 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-282 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

wildfire, which has affected very large areas of sagebrush habitat, followed by invasion of non-native plants, such as 

cheatgrass. Depending on what is needed, restoration and enhancement of habitat subjected to these stresses will take years 

or even decades to achieve. Accordingly, BLM needs to more clearly define the basis it will use for establishing the current 

baseline conditions and for concluding that the species or its habitat has been maintained or enhanced. The Interim 

Management IM instructs BLM staff to: “Consider alternatives that would increase buffer distances around active leks and 

timing restrictions within active LUPs.”185 However, it is our opinion that buffers for wind energy developments are not 

biologically justified as the impacts for such requirements are unknown. While studies of the impact of some development on 

sage-grouse have been done on development activities other than wind, it is unclear whether these types of activities are 

analogous to wind development and offer any support for such requirements to be imposed on the wind industry by analogy. 

In addition, while timing restrictions that protect leks from visual disturbance during the lekking seasons might be biologically 

justified, the buffer distance will vary according to the site. For example, if an access road is not visible from a lek, traffic may 

be able to use the road during the lekking season; on the other hand, a road that is visible from a lek should be subject to 

timing restrictions. We reiterate that the benefits of these spatial and temporal restrictions for wind power with respect to

sage-grouse have not been studied or demonstrated to our knowledge, and therefore, there is no support for mandating 

these types of restrictions, especially without allowing for stakeholders to submit comments on the measures.

1346. C. Mitigation Options Should not be Unnecessarily Limited In our experience, onsite mitigation options are often limited 

because BLM appears to believe that sagegrouse will disappear from the project area of a wind farm. If the term mitigation 

is used in its classic sense, as defined by the FWS and Corps of Engineers, mitigation includes (in this order) avoidance, 

minimization, and compensation. Using this definition, avoidance of as much impact through project siting, design and/or 

operation should constitute an onsite mitigation action, as would minimizing other impacts through project design or 

operation. Offsite mitigation options should include compensatory mitigation, in which sage-grouse habitat would be 

improved in some substantial way to provide a net benefit. Compensatory mitigation options include, but are not limited to,

juniper removal, marking fences and transmission lines, decommissioning existing roads, replanting burned areas, controlling 

non-native species, managing livestock, restoring higher quality native vegetation, and limiting public access to important 

areas, including lekking, nesting, and winter ranges. Offsite mitigation can also most easily be accomplished on private lands 

through conservation banking or through Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) and on public 

lands (if feasible) through Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs).

All BLM emc0344GB

1347. E. Several NTT Report Requirements are Unsupported and Unjustified The NTT Report establishes several requirements 

that are not adequately supported in the record and, therefore, not reasonably justified. First, the NTT Report states: 

“Within priority habitat, a minimum range of 50-70 percent of the acreage in sagebrush cover is required for long-term 

sage-grouse persistence.”188 This range relies on a number of studies, each including complex statistical analyses that used 

different techniques and measured sagebrush cover at varying distances. The lower limit for the percentage of sagebrush 

cover in these studies, however, is between 25-30 percent; the upper limit is between 50-65 percent.189 Therefore, without 

providing support for this conclusion, the NTT Report unjustifiably increases the range to 50-70 percent. Furthermore, the 

NTT Report failed to consider how much sage-grouse habitat actually includes over 50 percent of the acreage in 

sagebrush-dominated cover, given the number of wildfires that have occurred in the last five to ten years. In other words, in 

All Both emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-283

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

reality, part of the area currently designated as PPH likely does not meet the 50 percent sagebrush standard due to recent 

fires. Thus, this standard should be stated as a goal to be achieved if adequate data is found to sustain it, rather than be put 

forth as a requirement. The core area protection measure requires that PPH areas be managed or restored so that at least 

70 percent of the land cover provides sagebrush habitat for the sage-grouse.190 In areas of PPH that include a significant 

amount of private grazing land, we question whether this could be achieved in areas where private landowners do not wish 

to preserve or increase the amount of shrub-steppe vegetation on their lands. In addition, it is unclear as to what will be the 

unit of consideration for PPH. For instance, will PPH cover an entire Field Office area, or will it be broken into smaller 

subareas? The size of the area in which PPH baseline condition is considered could have a large impact on the initial 

proportion covered by sagebrush. The NTT report also requires: “Manage[ment of] priority sage-grouse habitat so that 

discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership.”191 The 

basis for this recommendation is cited as “professional judgment”192 derived from several studies cited in the report.193 All

of these studies, however, were conducted in non-wind energy development areas, which are very different from and orders 

of magnitude larger and more complex than a typical wind project. The assumption that sage-grouse will respond to an 

individual wind project in the same way that they respond to other development activities that are several orders of 

magnitude larger is questionable and should not be relied upon without further support for such a conclusion. Finally, the 

NTT Report states: “The priority is to implement off‐site mitigation within the priority sage‐grouse habitat, followed by 

general sage‐grouse habitat.”194 Furthermore, the NTT Report calls for: Assess[ment of] general sage-grouse habitats to 

determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused by perturbations and/or disturbances and provide connectivity 

between priority areas...these habitats should be given some priority over other general sage-grouse habitats that provide 

marginal or substandard sage-grouse habitat.195 The difficulty, as stated before with respect to delineation of PPH and 

PGH, is that these areas are inconsistently and inaccurately defined across the sage-grouse range. Therefore, we emphasize 

again the need for site-specific information to consistently and accurately describe PPH and PGH. We also reiterate the wind 

industry’s ability to assist in achieving this goal via on- and offsite- compensatory mitigation that can provide a net benefit to 

sage-grouse.

1348. F. The Scale of the Core Area Protection Approach and its Blanket Exclusion of Wind Development Compromises State and 

Federal Renewable Energy and Economic Development Objectives The sage-grouse conservation documents that the NOI 

states will inform the RMP amendment process adopt an approach whereby important environments for sage-grouse 

preservation are identified and subsequently established as core areas in which development activities are prohibited. For 

example, there is a blanket prohibition on wind energy development in PPH areas in which a 3 percent disturbance threshold 

has already been met.196 Another related core area protection measure requires that PPH areas be managed or restored 

so that at least 70 percent of the land cover provides sagebrush habitat for the sage-grouse.197 Given that the sage-grouse 

occupies an expansive range across the western United States, much of which overlaps with the nation’s regions that possess 

the greatest potential for wind energy development, such a rigid conservation framework has the potential to bring wind 

energy development on public lands to a halt. AWEA has analyzed the PPH and PGH sage-grouse areas designated within 

different states and how they overlap witheach state’s capacity for wind development. According to our analysis, restricting 

development in the designated areas would result in the loss of 82.2 percent of all lands suitable for wind development in 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-284 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Wyoming, 55 percent for Nevada, 53 percent for Montana, 52.1 percent for Idaho, 38.4 percent for Oregon, and 9 percent 

for Utah.198 Considering the magnitude of these percentages, adopting a core area approach premised on blanket wind 

development exclusions would significantly derail the nation’s energy, environmental, and job creation objectives associated 

with renewable energy, and prioritized by the Obama Administration.

1349. G. Sage-grouse Population Declines Are Primarily Being Driven By a Series of Other Causes That Should Be the Focus of 

Conservation Measures AWEA urges BLM to also consider other conservation strategies that are unrelated to wind 

energy development, but that possess significant potential for rehabilitating sage-grouse populations. The conservation of the 

sage-grouse requires a comprehensive approach by the BLM and the FWS that not only addresses the potential minimal and 

undocumented impacts caused by wind development, but also those sources that are responsible for a greater share of the 

mortalities and habitat loss experienced by the species. Significant sources responsible for sage-grouse population declines 

include habitat fragmentation, degradation of sagebrush habitat, wildfires, invasive species, climate change, and West Nile 

Virus. We also note that any potential harm posed by wind energy development is distinct and generally unsubstantiated as 

compared to the documented, more severe consequences that stem from impacts from other kinds of development and 

natural causes like wildlfires. Limiting development of wind on such a large scale will only further retard the understanding 

of impacts to sage grouse from wind energy facilities. Furthermore, it will exacerbate the impacts of climate change. Given 

this trade off, it is more prudent for BLM to work closely with the wind energy industry and allow for development to occur 

so that a better understanding of the impacts can be attained. This can be done in a thoughtful and responsible manner if BLM 

adopts the risk-based approach put forth in the FWS’s Wind Turbine Siting Guidelines, rather than using a blanket, landscape 

scale exclusion approach. While research is needed to assess whether wind energy development is responsible for any 

adverse effects on sage-grouse, the following conservation measures could be implemented to addresses those sources that 

already have been confirmed to have negative impacts on the species: 1. Restricting public access to important seasonal 

habitats; 2. Marking fences to minimize collision fatalities; 3. Elimination of environmental conditions that promote the 

breeding of mosquitos that carry the West Nile Virus; 4. Decommissioning roads; 5. Providing for a beneficial regulatory 

environment for renewable energy generation to mitigate climate change and its associated negative consequences on 

wildlife; 6. Replanting sagebrush in burned areas; and 7. Controlling invasive species that adversely impact sage-grouse 

habitat.

All BLM emc0344GB

1350. H. Conservation Measure Alternatives to the Core Area Exclusion Approach AWEA believes that preservation of the 

sage-grouse can best be achieved by enlisting the wind industry as a partner in conservation and that wind developments can 

be designed and operated to coexist with sagegrouse habitats. Site-specific habitat analyses can be completed pre- and 

post-construction research to assess the potential impact of wind energy projects on sage-grouse to determine how they 

these projects can best be sited and maintained to mitigate any potential impacts on sage-grouse habitats. Compensatory 

mitigation measures can also be pursued to provide a net benefit to the species, such as establishing conservation banks that

benefit specific populations in various regions that are most in need. Another approach to preserving the sage-grouse is 

augmenting small existing populations in isolated areas by translocating sage-grouse from other areas and combining the 

relocations with habitat enhancement activities. These strategies would help to prevent extirpation at the edges of the range 

and enhance the genetic diversity in these small populations as well.199 Significant scientific uncertainty surrounds the 

All BLM emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-285

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

threats posed to sage-grouse and the value of different conservation tactics. Therefore, the sponsorship of applied research 

to determine what measures are effective in enhancing existing sagebrush habitat could provide significant contributions to 

the species. Examples of other potential mitigation and/or conservation measures that we believe would have the greatest 

positive impact on sage-grouse populations are as follows: 1. Funding a database that would compile all known data on 

sage-grouse populations, mortality, trends, etc. on a regional and national basis. 2. Funding programs focused on habitat 

improvements and preservation. AWEA and the wind industry remain available to discuss these and other options that 

could provide a net positive benefit to sage-grouse populations.

1351. The Sage Grouse Plan Amendments should be seen as an opportunity to emplace adequate conservation measures in 

accordance with the best available science.

All Both emc0343GB

1352. The sage grouse is a good umbrella species, the protection of which would assist in the conservation of many other 

sagebrush obligate species that are currently declining (Rowland et al. 2006b). The plan amendments should therefore focus 

not just on sage grouse but on protecting the sagebrush ecosystem as a whole, at a landscape scale, which will also protect 

other BLM Sensitive Species such as the pygmy rabbit, white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, sage 

sparrow, sage thrasher, and Brewer’s sparrow. We encourage BLM to approach the sage grouse plan amendment with an 

eye toward protecting large core segments of high-quality habitat and also to establish connectivity between core areas to 

lessen the likelihood of extirpation through permitting interchange of sage grouse between core areas.

All Both emc0343GB

1353. In its list of Problem Statements, WAFWA (2006) outlined a daunting list of threats to sage grouse persistence: - The loss 

of 46% of greater sage grouse range to date and the fragmentation/habitat degradation of remaining range poses great 

challenges for the perpetuation of the species.

All Both emc0343GB

1354. In its list of Problem Statements, WAFWA (2006) outlined a daunting list of threats to sage grouse persistence: -

knowledge and capacity to achieve habitat restoration are inadequate to meet rangewide restoration goals

All Both emc0343GB

1355. In its list of Problem Statements, WAFWA (2006) outlined a daunting list of threats to sage grouse persistence: - Lack of a 

clearinghouse for information related to sage grouse and sagebrush ecosystems - Lack of a definition and metrics for success 

or failure of conservation actions for sage grouse - There is a lack of understanding of social and economic effects (both 

positive and negative) of human activities on sage grouse and habitat persistence - Lack of analytical tools to model effects of 

habitat treatments (succession, disturbance, bird response) - Lack of coordination for funding, research, monitoring and 

management - Greater sage grouse may be negatively impacted by inconsistent and inadequate application of regulations 

within and among agencies. - Some regulations are antiquated resulting in negative impacts on greater sage grouse and their 

habitat, sometimes disincentivizing solutions - Current approaches do not facilitate coordinated planning and 

implementation and evaluation of plans that integrate the issues and address cumulative effects - No standardized 

infrastructure has been developed to facilitate exchange of scientific and management information and learning among local 

working groups - Lack of coordination of agency policies, programs and regulations at national, regional, state and local levels 

to address issues has adversely affected sage grouse conservation.

All Both emc0343GB

1356. The BLM should address each of these challenges in its forthcoming NEPA document on the sage grouse plan amendments. 

While a few of these challenges, particularly those related to setting up information clearinghouses and communicating 

between various agencies, are presently being addressed to some extent, most of the threats that relate directly to sage 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-286 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

grouse habitat quality and population trends not only still remain but are in many cases getting worse.

1357. We endorse the recommendations in the Sage Grouse Recovery Alternative submitted by WildEarth Guardians, which we 

incorporate by reference into these comments.

All Both emc0343GB

1358. We strongly encourage the BLM to implement the measures included in the National Technical Team report, appended to 

the planning guidance, as a minimum level of protection in the context of the heavy impacts of energy development. See 

Attachment 1. These are science-based standards recommended by the BLM’s own experts, with the concurrence of sage 

grouse biologists within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, other federal agencies, and state game and fish agencies. Indeed, 

according to BLM’s National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, “Members of the NTT will be composed of subject 

matter experts who have extensive technical expertise in their disciplines.” The Department of Interior has made strong 

policy statements with regard to using the best available science to guide land and wildlife management decisions, and this 

sage grouse plan amendment is a proper medium to put this policy into action. According to BLM IM 2012-44, “The 

conservation measures developed by the NTT and contained in Attachment 1 must be considered and analyzed, as 

appropriate, through the land use planning process by all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied greater sage 

grouse habitat.” This direction directs the BLM to implement these measures to the extent they are consistent with 

applicable state statute and regulation.

All Both emc0343GB

1359. The greater sage grouse has long been described by researchers as a ‘landscape-scale’ species, requiring large tracts of 

undisturbed, high-quality sagebrush habitat to survive and thrive. With this in mind, the most appropriate approach for sage 

grouse conservation on federal lands (which make up more than fifty percent of the remaining sage grouse habitat in the 

nation) is a rangewide approach, in the form of Instruction Memoranda and a rangewide Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) that will amend Resource Management Plans on BLM-managed lands, National Forests, National Parks, 

National Wildlife Refuges, and lands managed by the Department of Defense throughout the range of the sage grouse and 

apply strong protection measures that allow sage grouse populations not only to survive, but to rebound to levels where the 

survival of the species is no longer in doubt in any significant portion of its range, and to provide a surplus for game hunting. 

It is important to bear in mind that the present depressed population numbers for sage grouse have led to the bird to its 

current predicament, teetering on the edge of Endangered Species listing. It is not sufficient merely to maintain sage grouse

populations at their present low levels, or (worse yet) to allow additional population decreases resulting from 

agency-permitted projects or activities. Instead, the goal should be to recover sage grouse populations to levels where 

populations are secure rangewide, and expanding populations and suitable habitats in regions of the nation where current 

populations are at risk.

All Both emc0343GB

1360. All stakeholders throughout the West, whether their goal is sage grouse recovery or merely avoidance of additional 

regulations, should be able to agree that sage grouse recovery is an outcome that best provides certainty for both sage 

grouse persistence and for industries that do business and communities who live within its range. At the same time, a strong 

sage grouse conservation plan, founded in establishing core habitats where land uses are made compatible with maintaining 

healthy habitat, is the cornerstone for protecting not only the grouse itself but also a broad diversity of other 

sagebrushdependent wildlife. Many of these species are also declining and may soon become candidates for ESA listing in the 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-287

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

absence of a comprehensive conservation strategy.

1361. We understand that the federal government is considering using as a national template the Core Area Strategy originally 

developed by the State of Wyoming and subsequently refined in several Instruction Memoranda by the BLM Wyoming State 

Office. This strategy is based on an ecologically sound concept: that the sage grouse is a landscapescale species requiring the 

designation of large tracts of key habitat where sage grouse habitat conservation will be the first priority in land management. 

However, the implementation of this strategy, and the specific standards and guidelines that have been applied to date in 

Wyoming Core Areas, have been characterized by major loopholes that allow industrial uses that are clearly incompatible 

with sage grouse persistence to move forward inside Core Area boundaries. As a result, there has been major controversy 

within the state over whether the Core Area concept is a legitimate conservation strategy or merely window dressing 

designed to create the illusion of sage grouse conservation inside Core Areas without actually restricting the activities that 

threaten sage grouse in these areas. The Sage Grouse RMP Amendment Process should adopt the best parts of the 

Wyoming strategy while redressing its crippling defects, and in Wyoming the loopholes which currently open Core Areas to 

incompatible uses need to be closed, at least on federal lands. Loopholes in Core Area guidance are fully discussed in the 

section titled, ‘Science-based standards for oil and gas development,’ below.

All Both emc0343GB

1362. When the State of Wyoming embarked upon its groundbreaking sage grouse Core Area policy, it started with the right idea, 

identifying core habitats that supported the most abundant populations of sage grouse, and prioritizing these areas for 

protection. However, because a consensus-based collaborative group (the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team or “Team”) 

was appointed by Governor Freudenthal to identify Core Areas and prescribe the conservation measures that applied there, 

representatives from the oil industry appointed to the Team were able to extract biologically inappropriate concessions, 

both in terms of removing key habitats from Core Areas and in creating loopholes and lowering protection levels that apply 

both within and outside the Core Areas. As a result, some Core Areas excluded key sage grouse habitats, and other lands 

that should have been Core Areas by virtue of having the highest densities of sage grouse were excluded entirely from the 

designations, especially in the Powder River Basin (Buffalo Field Office) and along the Atlantic Rim in the Rawlins Field office. 

As a result, the Core Areas designated in the Powder River Basin likely are inadequate to prevent the extirpation of the 

species in this key linkage between populations in Montana and the Dakotas and the heart of the sage grouse range. A 

Population Viability Analysis recently commissioned by BLM for the Powder River Basin indicates that as well densities 

increase to 8 wells per square mile, a single West Nile virus outbreak is predicted to cause the functional extinction of this 

population across the Basin. See Attachment 2. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and the Sage Grouse Plan 

Amendments should address this problem directly by increasing the number of Core Areas to include the remaining 

high-density sage grouse lek complexes and expanding existing Core Areas. Populations elsewhere within Core Areas are 

likely to decline or even disappear if industrial development proceeds there under current guidelines. These crippling 

weaknesses in the Wyoming plan render it unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny as an adequate conservation measure. The 

federal government can and should do better for federal lands.

All Both emc0343GB

1363. In his original 2008 Executive Order, Governor Freudenthal got it right: “New development or land uses within Core 

Population Areas should be authorized or conducted only when it can be demonstrated by the state agency that the activity 

will not cause declines in Greater Sage-Grouse populations.”2 This provision essentially required that the best available 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-288 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

science be consulted, and if levels of proposed development exceeded science-based thresholds at which sage grouse 

declines begin to occur, the development would not be allowable. This provision was removed in Governor Freudenthal’s 

2010 Executive Order, and was not reinstated by Governor Mead in his own 2011 Sage Grouse Executive Order. The 

Interior Department has the opportunity to redress this reversal of policy by ensuring that this commitment is included in 

the rangewide sage grouse policy, and therefore protections reflecting the biological needs of the species (rather than the 

interests of developers) will apply in Core Areas on BLM lands.

1364. For the purposes of the new federal policy on sage grouse, we recommend starting from a clean slate and designating core 

habitat areas that include all of the most populous leks in each state. In Wyoming, Core Area delineation started from this 

point, but lands proposed for oil and gas projects or existing development were subtracted. Later, additional lands were 

removed from protection at the behest of industrial interests wishing to pursue projects incompatible with sage grouse 

conservation inside designated Core Areas. This led to some fairly absurd outcomes, such as the removal of substantial 

acreage from a Core Area on White Mountain to the north of Rock Springs to allow a wind farm proposed by Whirlwind 

LLC; Whirlwind subsequently abandoned its proposal and moved its project more than 100 miles east, but the key sage 

grouse habitats remain excluded from Core Area protections. A number of other “adjustments” that were made to 

accommodate incompatible industrial projects inside Core Areas without triggering protections are denoted on the 

attached map. See Attachment 3. These debacles illustrate the need for consistent, rigorous standards across all states in the 

sage grouse’s range, the need to restore the original Core Area boundaries so that proposed projects can be brought into 

compliance with standards that protect sage grouse, and the need to prevent boundary adjustments and other exceptions 

that undermine Core Area protections moving forward.

All Both emc0343GB

1365. (16) Notwithstanding (4) above, existing state and local sage grouse working groups have crealed numerous local area plans 

designed to specifically enhance sage grOlL<le habitat and populations. A major drawback to the plans is their inability to be 

implemented on BLMJUSFS Land. T ,(leal agency offices do not have the personneJ or funding necessary to abide by 

overly"burdcnsome regulatOlY requirements and issue/defend approval decisions for the mueh needed projects and

proposals.

All BLM fxc0011GB

1366. For most of the Scoping period, much information necessary to provide informed public comment was not available. For 

example, the Nevada habitat maps imposing the Priority and General Habitat segregation scheme were not even placed 

on-line until early March. They were not available for the public meetings.

All Both emc0411GB

1367. Underlying this process is agency reliance on an offshoot of the Wyoming Core Model. This is a Priority Habitat, General 

Habitat, and Non-Habitat sagebrush lands segregation scheme. Basically, the agency takes some degree of better care in 

Priority habitats (largely based on where leks have been monitored and more birds counted) while still allowing 3% more 

development to occur in Priority areas. Then, the scheme pretty much sacrifices everything else – including occupied 

General sagegrouse habitat, and unoccupied sagebrush or other lands often inhabited by other rare and declining species. 

The imposition of the Priority and General habitat sacrifice scheme discards the careful multi-year planning that went into 

the existing Idaho sage-grouse plan and mapping and identification of Key and restoration habitats, and other similar efforts.

All Both emc0411GB

1368. The NTT Report cites the March 2010 USFWS Warranted but Precluded Finding (2010 75 FR 13910) concerns about 

anthropogenic habitat impacts and lack of regulatory mechanisms. The BLM objective for chartering the NTT was to develop 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-289

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

new or revised regulatory mechanisms. One of the NTT Report’s objectives is to provide innovative scientific perspectives 

concerning management approaches for the greater sage-grouse. NTT at 4. These innovative perspective, like segregating 

occupied habitat based on inadequate information are unproven as effective conservation for a landscape species. This 

sacrifices occupied sagebrush habitats to benefit energy developers, livestock operators and other extractive and 

commodity interests.

1369. The goal of the Strategy and this IM is to review existing regulatory mechanisms and to implement new or revised regulatory 

mechanisms through the land use planning process to conserve and restore the Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat. But 

in reality, the NTT did much more than this. The NTT developed sundry often near-status quo habitat provisions --- to be 

differentially applied in the segregated sage-grouse occupied habitats placed into Priority and General categories. It set in 

motion the BLM process range-wide to sacrifice large areas of occupied sagebrush habitats to development, even where 

knowledge of how birds used a landscape is very incomplete. This was done without integrated habitat and population 

analysis demonstrating that segregating and discarding occupied sagebrush habitats in this way into general categories and 

continuing to sacrifice even parts of the Priority habitats (3%) across the range of sage-grouse would be appropriate or 

effective to conserve sage-grouse, or that it would sustain populations and not lead to further, and often irreversible losses. 

There was no adequate review of the quality or quantity of habitat and the status and viability of the populations to which it 

was being applied. There was no rigorous analysis showing that it would achieve claimed conservation benefits. It was done 

without analysis demonstrating how allowing 3% more bulldozed development in even the most prime Priority habitats, 

while allowing a battery of continuing degradation and disturbance from livestock grazing and a myriad of already authorized 

developments across all habitats would provide effective conservation. At the same time, uncapped levels of development 

can take place in occupied General habitat in this lek-based habitat segregation scheme.

All Both emc0411GB

1370. BLM IMs carry out the NTTs often limited, flawed and often uncertain measures. See 12/27/2011, IM 2012-043, 2012-044. 

The provisions in IM 2012-043 are mostly typical BMPs Best Management Practices. Many are weaker even than measures 

described as necessary in the NTT. BLM’s IM stated: Interim Conservation Policies and Procedures for Preliminary Priority 

Habitat Through these policies and procedures, you should seek to maintain, enhance, or restore conditions for Greater 

Sage-Grouse and its habitat. These policies and procedures apply to PPH only. Separate policies and procedures for PGH are 

provided in Section II of this IM The bottom line is that BLM has plowed ahead with sacrificing habitats in many areas where 

essential baseline studies to delineate full sage-grouse use of an interconnected suite of essential seasonal habitats have not 

been conducted. BLM is acting through segregating habitats and creating a sacrifice habitat category of General habitat often 

based on very little actual knowledge of sage-grouse seasonal use, to foreclose on options to conserve, enhance and restore 

sage-grouse populations.

All BLM emc0411GB

1371. This is all based, on the unproven, untested, largely industry-driven Wyoming core model which was developed in a 

landscape with much more continuous expanses of sagebrush habitats than are naturally found in Basin and Range 

topography, or that now remain in vast areas of the species range that have been developed for agriculture, mined, 

intensively grazed by livestock, altered and destroyed by agency treatments, or have been consumed in large fires.

All Both emc0411GB

1372. There is also sagebrush that is not included in any habitat category, as well as large areas of longidentified restoration habitat, 

especially in the Idaho mapping, that fall outside PPH or PGH. Many identified restoration habitats are omitted from the 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-290 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

process altogether: The Gunnison Sage-Grouse, bi-state population in California and Nevada and the Washington State 

distinct population segments of the Greater Sage-Grouse will be addressed through other policies and planning efforts. The 

Ims, NTT and habitat segregation do not apply to these very small and isolated populations and PMUs. We also note that one 

of the artifices being used by FWS and agencies to mask population declines and range contractions involves using a 

floristic-based Vegetation Management Zone (VMZ) population lumping scheme. The Bi-State population is lumped in with 

widely separated scattered, increasingly isolated declining populations in Utah and Nevada and a larger central Nevada 

population.

1373. IM 2012-043 claims that it incorporates the following principles: Protection of unfragmented habitats. In fact, the agency does 

just the opposite. The occupied habitat segregation scheme allows uncapped fragmentation of occupied General habitat. Plus 

it allows 3% more development and fragmentation even within Priority Habitat. Minimization of habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Allowing 3% of the land area of Priority habitat, and uncapped amounts of the segregated sage-grouse 

occupied General habitat to be altered, fragmented or destroyed and the landscape torn up by new transmission lines, gas 

pipelines, renewable energy development like industrial wind farms, mining all the while existing grazing, mining, roading, 

etc. continue unabated - is not minimizing anything. Management of habitats to maintain, enhance, or restore conditions that 

meet Greater sage-grouse life history needs. See above concerns about habitat sacrifice, fragmentation, and development. 

How does one manage habitats for life history needs when: 1) For many populations, the full set of habitats used across all 

landscape are not known; 2) The Idaho and Nevada mapping examples show, that to meet BLM’s artificial Priority and 

General habitat scheme, many occupied seasonal habitats have been relegated to the General category. A reasonable person 

would say you take care of the habitat until the bird’s full use of the landscape is understood. Not take an immediate 

Wyoming Core-derived meat cleaver to it, as the pro-development habitat segregation scheme does.

All Both emc0411GB

1374. How will the outcome of this process apply to existing grazing permits, special use permits, leases, rights-of-way, etc. that 

have already been issued? All of these must be swiftly amended not wait until several years after the RODs or some other 

distant day. Swift action is needed as grazing disturbance- promoted weedlands are increasing every day, and the pace of 

agency approval of myriad livestock facilities, vegetation treatments, and energy or development and other disturbances that 

alter, degrade, destroy and fragment habitats does not appear to have slowed in any way. And now imposition of the Core 

Model actually would allow more development even in the most pristine areas. In fact, as we describe below, the core 

scheme may be in conflict with greater protections for sagegrouse that are found in some of the older Land Use Plans.

All Both emc0411GB

1375. According to Idaho BLM, Planning Issues identify concerns that: Present unresolved questions or new opportunities to 

change allocation of a specific resource. How are allocations defined? WWP believes that BLM must allocate resources 

(including abundant and undisturbed resources of food, cover and space that provides habitat security) to sustain and 

recover sage-grouse habitats and populations.

All BLM emc0411GB

1376. In recalling the many shortcomings and resultant environmental damage that has occurred due to the BLM Weed EIS’s failure 

to address causes of weeds and deal with allocations, we are struck by the similarity between the NEPA-less PER report, and 

today’s NEPA-less imposition of the NTT habitat sacrifice scheme segregating occupied sage-grouse habitats. Neither 

underwent NEPA or adequate scientific review, but the actions proceeded to be carried out by BLM anyway.

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-291

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1377. Agencies in this current process must examine all components of existing Land Use Plans, the foundation and adequacy of 

the existing Plans, and their often contradictory and mutually exclusive competing Goals and Objectives for wildlife and 

ecological concerns, and compare these to provisions for extractive and commodity uses. For example, if the 

Goals/Objectives for livestock in existing Plans were to be achieved, it would likely be impossible to achieve Wildlife, 

Watershed, or other environmental Goals and Objectives.

All Both emc0411GB

1378. If the outcome of this current process is that Land Use Plans are amended, and grazing permits and other federal agency 

authorizations are allowed to continue for years, or until they come up for renewal, any change on the ground will be 

agonizingly slow. Action will also be much too slow to be effective in preventing further sage-grouse habitat loss, habitat 

destruction, population declines, and ultimately population extirpation. Habitat and population loss will far outstrip the 

ability of agencies to even track the unfolding ecological collapse of the sagebrush landscape.

All Both emc0411GB

1379. What happens if new anti-environmental changes are made to laws during this process? A fair and honest analysis must be 

made, and agencies must candidly lay out harm, and attempt to mitigate it by requiring even stronger actions if requirements 

that will result in adverse ecological changes are laid down/legislated.

All BLM emc0411GB

1380. Present major land use conflicts regarding management or maintenance of a base resource. This relates to the preceding 

discussion of allocations, suitability, and risk. The degree of conflict and environmental risk must be assessed as part of a

suitability analysis, as a basis for any continuing allocations. This must be done in a detailed and thorough manner, with 

mapping and overlays of grazing and other disturbance threats. Quantitative and qualitative analysis must be provided. How 

many oil and gas leases and wells, mining claims and mines, energy rights-of-way and developments, grazing AUMs, pasture 

fences, water troughs, and other demands and disturbances are already heaped into an unraveling landscape vital to 

sustaining a population of sage-grouse? Where in this landscape are all of the uses occurring? Data and analysis necessary to 

systematically reduce and remove disturbances and stresses must be provided.

All BLM emc0411GB

1381. Can be resolved by the BLM or Forest Service within the life of the plan. What is meant by resolved? This must be defined, 

We are concerned that agencies might use this to claim that some recovery actions would take longer that the Plan life. Full 

recovery of sagebrush ecosystems takes many decades, and longer than the shelf life of any particular plan. Thus, we are 

concerned that agencies may use this provision to say they can’t consider passive restoration because full restoration will 

take much longer than 20 years. So all that we will see considered would be often destructive vegetation killing Orwellianly 

termed restoration) since sagebrush killing can be accomplished quickly - it can be mowed, or trees and sagebrush burned or 

sprayed in the course of a day. But the full recovery would take decades or centuries, or recovery may not occur at all if 

weeds invade. Even re-seeding of native sagebrush vegetation could readily be cast side too - since fully mature sagebrush 

communities take far longer than 50 to several hundred years to develop. We are concerned that under this 20 year ceiling, 

BLM will only consider actions like further reduction of native woody vegetation.

All Both emc0411GB

1382. Ultimately, the BLM must examine the cumulative effects not only of grazing but also of energy development, transmission 

lines, recreation, climate change, fire, and invasive species. Each of these effects is interrelated. Landscape analyses and 

assessments of each categorical effect on ecological condition must be analyzed conjunctively. Omission of livestock grazing 

as a change agent would skew the results for all of the other change agents.

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-292 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1383. There is no information provided in the Scoping Notice for making informed public comment on the many dozens of Plans. 

What protections, and what unfettered development provisions, do each these plans actually contain? There is no summary 

on the provisions of these plan – or even in some cases, like the Bruneau, what the final plan still being used today really is. 

For example, livestock industry opposition to the Bruneau MFP process decades ago resulted in a three ring binder being the 

Final Plan. Often it is necessary to review not only the ROD, but also the Final MFP/RMP/Plan and FEIS to understand all that 

the Plan would entail, and get a glimpse of the setting and baseline it was carried out under. Plus Amendments to Plans may 

have been made, at times in response to litigation. For example, the Humboldt Forest Plan Amendment 2 provided riparian 

standards of use as triggers for livestock removal that were not included in the 1986 Forest Plan. The livestock industry has

long sought to strip these triggers for removal of livestock, and weaken Amendment 2. WWP has Appealed several 

Humboldt-Toiyabe Rangeland EISs that sought to weaken Amendment 2.

All Both emc0411GB

1384. Recent BLM Plans rely overwhelmingly on continuing near-status quo grazing disturbances and allowing expanded energy 

development and fragmentation and further losses of sagebrush habitats. Provisions of plans continue to be in conflict with 

one another. Aside from curtailing cross-country motorized use, the BLM Plans have continued to be based on the ideology 

of the cancer cell, albeit papered over in soft terminology and talk of adaptive management. Extensive additional

development is allowed.

All BLM emc0411GB

1385. There must be a comprehensive review of the entire fabric of the Plans being amended. Agencies cannot just amend some 

parts of the Plans, and leave others parts for example that promote aggressive treatment or high numbers of livestock or 

highly intrusive road networks - standing unaltered. This sets up inherent conflicts. BLM must evaluate in full detail the whole 

management paradigm upon which each Plan is based. The baseline at the time of being adopted must be described -

including mapping and analysis of the extent and condition of the sagebrush environment/habitats at the time the Plan was 

adopted. How has sagebrush habitat, and the sage-grouse populations including active leks and known lek locations and 

numbers of birds on leks, changed over time in each Plan area in the sagebrush biome? How successful has the Plan been at 

meeting and balancing all goals, objectives, etc.? Which LUP provisions are at loggerheads with one another and which are 

so conflicting that it is impossible to achieve them together? How can this be reconciled during this new process? How many 

miles of livestock pipelines, new roading, fencing, leases of all types, exploration and development projects (including for 

mines or energy), have been issued under the Plan? How has this affected habitats for wildlife? Please provide mapping, for 

example, showing fencing when the Plan was finalized vs. present conditions. This is important to highlight how very 

harmful provisions of plans related to livestock management and other activities really have been.

All BLM emc0411GB

1386. BLM, by now focusing on protecting only a sub-set of occupied sage-grouse habitat, appears to be planning for purposeful 

extirpation/extinction of populations over vast areas. Any "General" Habitat will be treated very poorly in practice. Any 

habitat that is not identified as Priority will be sacrificed/triaged. Having read many hundreds of BLM EAs over the past 

decade, we will lay out how the General habitat category will be dealt with. It will be sacrificed to grazing, energy, and all 

manner of development. Uses will be shifted and intensified in it rather than any real reductions made in the landscape. 

Habitat values will be lost altogether. Populations will decline

All BLM emc0411GB

1387. We have already in this process, (and on many previous occasions) expressed our concerns to BLM and other agencies 

about adopting a Core Model approach that sacrifices large areas of sagebrush habitat, and imposes a form of triage over 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-293

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

occupied habitats across vast areas of sagebrush landscapes in a biome that has been so greatly altered already.

1388. BLM has conducted a modeling effort to slice away parts of habitats used by larger populations, and to sacrifice habitats with 

fewer birds or where the agencies have less or inconsistent data as its starting point for conservation. At the same time, it 

is casting aside many areas, especially its own past forage seedings, and post-fire seedings that have been identified for 

restoration in existing sage-grouse plans. There is little consideration of recovering all acres lost to purposeful eradication 

and alteration in cattle forage seedings over the past half century by BLM, or to wildfires where the public has been promised 

habitat would be recovered.

All BLM emc0411GB

1389. There are also glaring inconsistencies in the mapping. For example, how one recently burned area may be treated, compared 

to another, and how habitat in one BLM District is treated, compared another.

All BLM emc0411GB

1390. BLM mapping cuts off and sacrifices large areas of critically important sagebrush habitats. In order for the public to be able 

to provide adequate scoping comments, information on current mapping must include lek data up through (at a minimum) 

the 2011 lek period across the sage-grouse range so that the public can understand how accurately BLM applied any 

modeling, and also understand the status of populations that span state lines. All modeling and all steps used in developing the 

mapping must be described in detail, step by step for all states. 2011 data is more likely to reflect current numbers in areas 

of more recent habitat degradation and losses such as the Murphy fire impacts, and the impacts or in other areas like 

Wyoming - the Jonah Field and other fast-pace energy development unfolding or the adverse impacts of the barrage of 

treatments that have altered and further fragmented the tattered remaining sagebrush habitats across Utah, or Ely BLM big 

sagebrush lands.

All BLM emc0411GB

1391. We also emphasize that although sage-grouse populations span state lines, BLM is compartmentalizing the EISs based on its 

administrative units. So some populations are likely to receive significantly different management under this process on one 

side of a state line vs. another.

All BLM emc0411GB

1392. BLM and the Forest Service throughout this process must provide the public full access to all lek counts and other survey 

data used in any way in this process. Agencies must provide all steps used in modeling and mapping. Data for all leks must be

provided. This should be Posted on BLM’s Website, and be available for public scrutiny. We are concerned about use of 

private or third party contractors in BLM efforts, efforts of states to make data very hard or even impossible to obtain, and

the increasingly common extended and often unlawful federal agency FOIA delays when FOIA information is requested. We 

are concerned that this may be done to hide or mask data on declines.

All Both emc0411GB

1393. For all leks where information is available, BLM must show who surveyed leks, when, how often, count results for all visits, 

intensity of surveys, and all other relevant information. This is of importance in areas like Wyoming where private energy 

interests may be counting birds over large areas, and where bias may exist. It is necessary to understand which leks are 

actually being surveyed, whether the most frequently surveyed leks are being cherry-picked to represent those with 

consistently higher numbers, and to show which leks have disappeared/been lost. See also our later questions and concerns 

with Nevada annual reporting. We also request that BLM/agencies post all lek count and other data and all specific steps and 

assumptions on which the Doherty Core analysis from 2010 was based, and on which any derivative modeling, mapping and 

analysis used in the current PPH habitat segregation model schemes are based on-line, so that this can be an open and 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-294 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

transparent process where the public equal access to nformation necessary to make informed comment and understand 

how models are being applied. We are concerned that what appears to be increased secrecy about grouse numbers and 

other essential information like locations of leks. The location of leks can be masked a bit if that is a large concern to the 

nearest half mile, or something. But full accurate accounting, numbers, and the environmental setting have to be presented 

and mapped in an open way to aid informed public comment. This includes ongoing comments in the Interim on a battery of 

agency proposals that are underway, or will be proposed, as this latest BLM process is being conducted, and agencies 

proceed to sacrifice General or non-core habitats, plus allow 3% new development to intrude into even the PPH .

1394. Secrecy and walling off info on claimed conservation actions and funding from the public currently occurs for example, EQIP 

or other funding through USDA, NRCS or state level efforts to limit access to info if it is kept by Agricultural Departments 

(as in Idaho), or passing funds through many layers of bureaucracy such as through various state Species Offices (as in Idaho). 

This may enables potential dishonest accounting on projects, misrepresentation of project benefits, and potential diversion 

of funds to purposes other than what they were originally intended for. It may allow diversion of funds intended for real 

sage-grouse conservation to be diverted to standard livestock facilities and forage projects to benefit ranchers not 

sage-grouse. All projects proposed, all costs, and open analysis of all environmental impacts must be regularly posted on 

federal agency Websites so that projects can be understood, and scrutinized by anyone who wants to see how tax dollars are 

(or are not) being used to protect sagebrush habitats. This is necessary to prevent waste and abuse, and prevent funds from 

being used as livestock project pay offs to ranchers or others. It is also necessary to determine the cost vs. benefit of 

projects, and conservation easements. This includes NRCS EQIP or other funds.

All Both emc0411GB

1395. Just a month after hearing Bob Budd (the Wyoming Core/Triage model facilitator) say in Boise that there were over 400,000 

grouse in Wyoming alone, in response to a question we had asked, we read an article in a Montana newspaper that had a 

much lower number --- range-wide. If the agencies truly want public buy-in, and an effective outcome - then full transparency, 

lack of bias, and honesty from the start is critical.

All Both emc0411GB

1396. BLM states that it will develop conservation measures, and these conservation measures “will be incorporated into RMPs 

and LMPs through the plan amendment and revision process”. For plans undergoing amendment/revision – agencies “will 

consider incorporating conservation measures through the ongoing amendment or revision, the BLM and FS will consider 

incorporating conservation measures ... through the ongoing process. There is no certainty in this at all! More recent BLM 

land use plans have typically had such loose, uncertain, non-binding language that there is always an out. Plus they rely on 

loose, uncertain open-ended ‘adaptive management. That does not require specific effective changes. They lack specific 

triggered actions with strict sideboards. Often what BLM and the FS claim are adaptive management is really just choosing to 

do something from a long list of BMPs, with no evaluation or guarantee of its effectiveness.

All BLM emc0411GB

1397. Every measure that is claimed to protect, conserve, enhance must be mandatory. BLM must use strong and decisive binding 

language like shall not may, might, can, would, etc.

All BLM emc0411GB

1398. The EIS process initially was to include 68 planning areas and 9 LMPs (with more Forest lands added in a subsequent Federal 

Register Notice when scoping was extended). BLM must develop a sciencebased list and analysis of sage-grouse habitat 

needs, and require they be applied and be mandatory across all of these Plan areas. Wouldn’t that simplify the process 

immensely, and save taxpayers large sums?

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-295

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1399. We are very concerned with the language of BLM documents related to this sage-grouse process. It appears that BLM 

proposes to apply different standards in different areas, or dilute and weaken protections based on opposition from ranching 

or other interests in some areas. This must not occur.

All BLM emc0411GB

1400. BLM must include full analysis of the Bi-state sage-grouse habitats and populations. There is no rationale for omitting full 

analysis of the Bi-State Mono Basin sage-grouse habitats and populations. The IMs make clear that the supposedly more 

protective measures for Priority habitats are not being applied in either the Mono area, or Washington state. So just how are 

these habitats being managed? In the Mono area, we are seeing an explosion of geothermal leasing proposals on 

Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest lands including an area spanning 500,000 acres, in the Nevada portion of the Bodie PMU and other 

areas critical to sage-grouse. Severe degradation of critical brood rearing areas continues in the Bodie PMU on BLM lands. 

Other PMUs now have only a hand full of leks. Cheatgrass is increasing in areas of sagebrush uplands. Sage-grouse habitats 

are also threatened by agency fuelbreak proposals that would promote cheatgrass expansion and further reduce available 

nesting habitat. Gold mining is also a threat. In Washington state, continued wildfire, and energy development, including 

industrial wind farms, have further fragmented and cut off habitat connectivity. Numbers of birds in Washington state used 

in various analyses are based on older data. At least the Washington State birds are placed in a separate VMZ. The 

Bi-state/Mono birds have crazily been lumped in with Utah and southern Nevada birds under the VMZ floristics based 

population compartmentalization and lumping scheme being employed by agencies to cover up losses.

All BLM emc0411GB

1401. BLM must include all federal lands in this process. Fish and Wildlife Service lands must be included. Military withdrawn lands 

also must be examined. Military-withdrawn lands, like the Juniper Butte Bombing Range in Idaho must be examined. Also, the 

adverse impacts of military training activities, and the threats that ongoing or foreseeable activities such as use of F-35s 

(extremely loud airplane) in MTRs and MOAs over public lands must also be examined. Bureau of Reclamation lands must 

also be included.

All BLM emc0411GB

1402. Ungrazed FWS Refuges like Hart Mountain and Sheldon provide valuable insight into the significant benefits of removing 

livestock disturbance for sage-grouse habitats and populations. Note: Purposeful agency treatments have promoted weeds 

as FWS has burned, mowed, or otherwise destroyed sagebrush in some areas this degradation must be addressed 

comprehensively in this process. The 350,000 sagebrush acres of Sheldon NWR are omitted, the Ruby NWR, and many 

other WRs that contain at least some very important sagebrush habitats are ignored. In areas like Sheldon, FWS argues that 

antelope prefer burned areas as justification for burning large areas of sagebrush used by sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit and other

wildlife. Since the Refuge’s primary mandate is antelope, critical sagegrouse habitats (and pygmy rabbit habitats) may be 

threatened by this continued manipulation ofhabitats if the burning and its associated cheatgrass increase continue. It is 

especially important that Refuges be included. Many are grazed, and managed for species other than sage-grouse like Malheur 

NWR where grazing and burns occur ostensibly to manage for waterfowl but also to benefit local cattle ranchers. This has 

resulted in burning sagebrush adjacent to marshy, meadow vegetation and loss of this habitat as well as expanded cheatgrass 

invasion into the incidentally or accidentally burned sagebrush areas - impacting not only grouse but also pygmy rabbit, 

loggerhead shrike, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, etc. Harmful impacts of activities conducted on Wildlife Refuges must 

be fully examined and controlled in this EIS process.

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-296 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1403. Agencies will utilize WAFWA, Connelly et al. 2002 and any other appropriate resources. Why doesn’t BLM include the 

Studies in Avian Biology information in the Garton et al. Chapter, including the population models and bleak predictions? 

These models were based on information from 2007 and prior lek counts and should be updated using the lek and other 

information showing results of the Murphy and other wildfires, continued Wyoming-MT energy production, the habitat 

fragmentation from a battery of Utah sagebrush treatments, range-wide grazing disturbance, etc. Plus many of the smaller 

populations were not even examined in the Garton et al modeling. Those are in great peril.

All BLM emc0411GB

1404. If BLM is indeed using Connelly et al. 2004, then it must use, and update information on, the populations identified in 

Connelly et al. (2004). It must examine all the threats and update all information on fence densities, livestock water 

developments, road densities, and cumulative and synergistic impacts of all of the sources of disturbance, and ecological 

conditions on the land such as accurate up-to-date information on extent of cheatgrasss, medusahead and other weed 

infestations in understories, and areas at risk of domination by these weeds. It must identify and examine the footprint of all 

of these on all the occupied habitats used by existing sage-grouse populations. It must identify restoration actions to expand 

occupied habitats.

All BLM emc0411GB

1405. This EIS process uses yet another broad category to better enable agencies to mask declines, or claim they are addressing 

threats. It broadly breaks sage-grouse populations into East and West, and then claims that there are different threats in 

these different regions. This ignores chronic degradation and threats like livestock grazing disturbance that are promoting 

invasive species which promote frequent fires, or that causes degradation of all components of ecosystems in both east and 

west. Grazing threats extend across the sagebrush biome. Areas that were once claimed to be immune from cheatgrass are 

now facing cheatgrass invasion in areas of livestock, fire, or other disturbances. Portions of Wyoming now are facing 

cheatgrass invasion and spread. In reality, continuing death by a thousands cuts of sage-grouse habitat is occurring 

biome-wide.

All Both emc0411GB

1406. BLM staff and managers constantly claim that grazing and other activities have to occur on all areas of public land under 

"multiple use". But FLPMA does not require that all lands have to be managed for all uses. This is a key provision of FLPMA 

that must be a bedrock principle of this EIS process.

All BLM emc0411GB

1407. The current Forest Service Planning process outcome weakens wildlife and other population requirements, and other key 

protective measures of NFMA. This sage-grouse process must result in an outcome that restores and preserves habitat 

protections and population viability. The agency must set up an anonymous broad-based review process - to "vet" it’s own 

actions as it embarks on a process. This is necessary to change a culture of accepting all manner of damage - and covering up 

the effects with contorted justifications.

All USFS emc0411GB

1408. The Plan amendments "will be limited to making land use plan decisions specific to the conservation of sage-grouse." This will 

only serve to cause more conflict. Many inadequate mining, energy, visual, transportation/OHV and other provisions of Land 

Use Plans come into direct conflict with sage-grouse habitat protection requirements, and it is very hard to understand just 

how BLM will split hairs here. See WWP Jarbidge RMP comments, explaining how weak VRM standards, lack of mineral 

withdrawals, energy accommodations and other RMP provisions would adversely affect management of sage-grouse habitats 

for sustainable populations. It will also serve to put more species in jeopardy - as sagebrush-dependent species with differing 

habitat requirements to some degree than sage-grouse get impacted as agencies shift and intensify all manner of degrading 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-297

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and disturbing uses (such as livestock) into the Sacrifice General occupied habitats or non-grouse areas.

1409. BLM states: The LUP amendments will contain decisions that are allocative and/or prescriptive to conserve sage-grouse 

habitat as well as objectives and management actions to restore, enhance, and improve greater sage-grouse habitat. We 

have previously discussed how BLM avoids making or changing allocations. What is the difference between an allocative and 

a prescriptive use? BLM must do both at the same time. Both allocative and prescriptive changes must occur together for this 

process to be effective and action happen in time to stop further declines. For example, BLM cannot substantially reduce 

grazing standards to provide for 9 inch nesting cover for sage-grouse, while keeping AUMs/stocking in grazing allotments the 

same. Risk assessments must be conducted and findings on continued suitability of lands for any grazing use must be made. 

Then, if grazing continues, necessary reductions in livestock to allow this level of grass nesting cover must be made. It is 

unacceptable to shift impacts into other areas - for example, onto segregated General or Non habitats, to achieve a small 

degree of hoped-for "improvement" in a Priority zone. If this is the approach BLM is contemplating with its wording here, 

sacrificing those other areas will not protect sage-grouse, and adverse impacts will occur and boomerang back onto the 

sage-grouse that are supposed to somehow prosper in only a portion of their occupied and required habitat, i.e. the limited 

Priority areas. Is BLM just planning the smokescreen of avoiding allocation changes by applying "prescriptions" where 

grazing use will be rotated in an easterly direction, rather than a westerly direction each year - or something similar? Or 

planning to allow industrial wind development to proceed in sensitive occupied habitats by churning out a 20 page list of 

"prescriptions" for developers to follow?

All BLM emc0411GB

1410. BLM must define exactly what is meant by "collaboration." Full, open, transparent, inclusive processes and meetings must 

occur. All data must be made readily available and posted on-line.

All BLM emc0411GB

1411. The second part of this "collaborative" provision in the BLM preliminary issues section deals with "desired future condition". 

What does this mean? It is not defined in any way that allows meaningful or informed comment.

All BLM emc0411GB

1412. "Desired future condition" must be based on current ecological science, not on boosting grass for livestock forage. This 

cannot be decided through a "collaborative" process if science is cast aside or diluted to please the collaborators - for all the 

reasons we have just described above. The desired future condition must be clearly described as containing the maximum 

amount of native sagebrush vegetation community elements (including healthy and intact microbiotic crusts as a frontline 

defense against weeds) and recovering natural ecological processes.

All BLM emc0411GB

1413. What is meant by the statement that BLM/FS will "strive to ensure conservation measures are as consistent as possible with 

other planning jurisdictions..?" Does this mean the agencies will capitulate to local rancher and industry-biased plans, county 

plans, state plans and the like? Or that BLM will capitulate to the political desires for ever-expanding development of the 

Western Governors? How will BLM deal with state, county or other agencies if their proposals are counter to current 

ecological science? How will BLM control political tampering, and biologist’s fears of reprisals in state or other agencies, if 

biology/ecology calls for stronger protections than managers are willing to make? Please define these planning jurisdictions.

All BLM emc0411GB

1414. The Notice states the agencies will consider a reasonable range of alternatives. What is reasonable? WWP requests to work 

with BLM and the Forest Service to develop a reasonable alternative. Provisions of this Alternative are included in these 

comments, and ACEC proposals. However, so that BLM does not cast aside consideration of our alternative, we request to 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-298 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

work with BLM, just as BLM is working with many others, to make sure BLM does not come up with an excuse for casting 

the Alternative and ACEC proposals aside. Firm science-based understanding of the baseline of habitat quality, quantity and 

threats is essential in developing a reasonable range of alternatives. A sound environmental baseline is essential. This must

detail habitat quality and quantity, and existing degradation and stresses. It is not reasonable to analyze the typical 

pro-commodity alternatives, with one token outlier conservation alternative that the agency will not choose, anyway.

1415. Moreover, it does not seem reasonable to use the habitat sacrificing NTT and weak IM actions as a basis for a reasonable 

range of alternatives. This species has already lost so much habitat and been eliminated from vast areas of its historical range. 

The range is contracting, many existing populations are very small. Taking a meat cleaver approach to the habitat remains (as 

the Core, NTT Priority and General Habitat schemes do) is not a reasonable basis for conservation. A range of 

precautionary alternatives that conserve, enhance, and restore habitats and populations must be developed.

All Both emc0411GB

1416. The No Grazing Alternative must be honestly examined, as well as a range of alternatives that remove grazing from vast 

areas of ACECs and occupied habitats and selected restoration areas.

All Both emc0411GB

1417. The full cost of efforts to try to restore sage-grouse habitats or populations if they are lost must be compared to values of 

continuing pervasive degrading disturbance like livestock grazing.

All Both emc0411GB

1418. The Federal Register Notice states that BLM "will endeavor" to use current scientific information, research, technologies, 

and results of inventory, monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and regional management strategies 

that will enhance or restore sage grouse habitat. This must be required! A sound peer review process free from political 

tampering must be set up. It must include ecologists from outside the usual circle of sage-grouse biologists - many of whom 

receive substantial grants from energy and other industry or who are tied into disturbance projects to continue to get grant 

funds. Independent review must be set up to ensure this. Habitats need to be both enhanced and restored. BLM must 

identify a clear ecological science-based plan to do so. We are alarmed that the wording here sounds like BLM is going to 

defer to local rancher-industry-dominated working groups and others, with no adequate required significant and effective 

changes really being made. Instead, sagebrush habitat death by a thousand cuts will continue, as Working Groups promote 

the underlying agendas of their industry members.

All BLM emc0411GB

1419. This already appears to show local deference. Having a confusion of weak provisions or varying BMPs or other measures will 

provide no certainty that sage-grouse will be conserved, enhanced and restored and increase in distribution and abundance. 

Largely the same principles and scientifically understood threats occur across the range of the sage-grouse. What has been 

occurring all along that has pushed sage-grouse to this point, is overwhelmingly agency deference to the desires of local 

commodity interests. This part of the Scoping Notice just sounds like more of the same. How will this EIS process, outcome 

and application on the ground be different? How will it be effective at turning the situation and downward trajectory around, 

and provide for viable populations in the short, mid and long-term? What is required are strong integrated strategies with 

required mandatory actions being taken, clear identified benchmarks for progress based on habitat quality, population 

increases, and other factors, and very significant removal of/rollback of disturbances, along with restoration of sagebrush to 

lands where it has been removed/altered/lost.

All Both emc0411GB

1420. Any use of adaptive management must be both proven to be effective to address the problem, and not shift disturbance or 

development impacts, i.e. cause harm, to another land area or component of the sagebrush ecosystem. Passive restoration

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-299

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

actions (at times coupled with active restoration such as facility removal, road closure) that remove disturbances, or that 

re-seed so the land can heal, must be used.

1421. What is meant by an interdisciplinary approach? Thorough and detailed publicly available records must be kept, made 

available, and posted at all times during this process. All data assembled and used in this EIS should be regularly posted on-line 

for full public review and understanding, as well as corrections/updates made where appropriate. All parts of this process 

must be transparent.

All Both emc0411GB

1422. BLM again references RFDSs - stating "the ... [Plan] amendments will be developed using an ID team approach to prepare 

RFDSs, to identify alternatives, and analyze resource impacts." What about first establishing a valid baseline on the toll that 

ongoing activities, including the immense Footprint of grazing, existing roading, mining, oil and gas activity, renewable energy, 

etc. are having?

All BLM emc0411GB

1423. All the energy development, mining, roading, veg treatments that result in cumulative adverse impacts to sage-grouse play 

out on a landscape that is near-universally subject to annual grazing disturbance from domestic livestock. Sagebrush lands 

have been industrialized with many harmful facilities put in place to facilitate and/or intensify grazing disturbance. Likewise, 

new developments will only add to the sagebrush habitat intrusion, disturbance and losses. The cumulative impacts of 

disturbances must be honestly examined in any RFDS. This scenario must be conducted for livestock grazing across agency 

lands, including stocking levels and lands suitable for, or open to, grazing use. The impacts of these actions related to grazing 

disturbances and developments, and the threats posed to all sage-grouse seasonal habitats, must be fully examined.

All Both emc0411GB

1424. BLM promises to address cumulative impacts here. Does this also mean that cumulative impacts will be adequately addressed 

in all aspects of the EIS process? Will this include analysis of the many very harmful disturbance activities that are already 

occurring across BLM, Forest, FWS, BuRec, military, private, state and other lands in the sagebrush biome to continue at 

near-status quo levels? First, the cumulative adverse impacts of ALL disturbance activities must be examined – both within 

agency lands as well as across their surroundings (state, private, other lands) in the biome. On top of this, BLM must analyze 

the impacts and complete Footprint of all the development and disturbance that is likely/foreseeable to occur both in the 

sagebrush biome. The full cumulative Footprint of these activities - not merely looking at the bulldozed disturbance zone of 

pipelines, transmission lines, geothermal wells, and other disturbances must be examined.

All BLM emc0411GB

1425. BLM refers to development of reasonable alternatives. How will BLM determine what is and is not a "reasonable" alternative? All BLM emc0411GB

1426. Any reasonable alternative must fully provide for sustaining and recovering degraded habitats and retaining existing 

populations. Alternatives that do not rely on the flawed habitat segregation scheme must be fully considered.

All BLM emc0411GB

1427. Any reasonable alternative must be viewed in the context of all the harms that have been done over the years to sagebrush 

habitats to support various uses, and the lack of effective mitigation or honest analysis of impacts to date. Full understanding 

of the extent of historical habitat, and habitat areas that need to be restored with sagebrush, must factor into this.

All Both emc0411GB

1428. For the past couple of years, agencies have been using another category to try to separate out populations, and minimize the 

importance of losses to the sagebrush habitats. This is the effort to segregate greater sage-grouse into eastern vs. western 

portions of the range on the basis of claims that grouse face different threats in different parts of their range. USFWS used 

this artifice in defending its toothless Warranted but Precluded Finding in litigation, and took it to absurd lengths in its 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-300 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

arguments there. First, many of the same threats occur across the range - livestock grazing, roads no matter what the 

cause, invasive species, mining. Second, increasingly renewable energy threats with many of the same impacts as oil and gas 

are accelerating in the western portion of the species range, and mining is exploding in northern and central Nevada and 

some other western areas. Plus hundreds of thousands of acres are now being leased for oil and gas development all over 

Nevada. Renewable energy examples: Major industrial wind farm on Steens Mountain Oregon and new transmission lines, 

major new transmission lines like Gateway and MSTI, geothermal development often by foreign entities (McGinness Hills and 

other areas), massive geothermal leasing proposals are appearing - for over 500,000 acres on Bridgeport Ranger District 

lands and elsewhere in NV. Mining is expanding into new areas where sage-grouse populations are already barely hanging on, 

and new mining is proposed in areas with larger populations, as well. In the east, weeds like cheatgrass are increasing (see 

WBEA Assessment discussion). New and expanded mining, new transmission lines, and oil and gas harms are far exceeding 

those agencies claimed would occur from these new or recently expanded developments. See 2012 Yubanet article on 

failures of Wyoming Core Model in the Powder River Basin.

1429. This latest agency East-West division compartmentalization strategy is in addition to the diversionary floristic VMZs being 

used to mask habitat declines and population losses to another. It ignores the threats that livestock grazing disturbance 

and other chronic disturbances, mining, renewable energy, as well as the array of combined death-by-a-thousand cuts habitat 

losses that are occurring - all pose to sage-grouse habitats. If all sage-grouse populations are viewed as two big East and 

West Units (with Bi-state/Mono Basin and WA state dwindling grouse populations off somewhere in left field being ignored 

altogether), then continuing habitat and population losses can be masked even more than under the VMZ categories. It 

ignores the fact that other activities in the western part of a species’ range - like a combination of grazing, mining and 

geothermal development, can result in intensive development and disturbances like Oil and Gas to sage-grouse populations. 

It ignores the fact that the same cheatgrass weed invasion problems altering fire cycles are now appearing in the chronically

grazed lands of southwestern Wyoming. It ignores that fact that vast areas of the western portion of sage-grouse range, in 

limestone regions of Nevada for example, are being leased by BLM for oil and gas - apparently under hope of use of new even 

more destructive technologies or claims that deposits may be present. The Nevada BLM Director recently made the news 

for not leasing some Oil and Gas parcels in Nevada. But she did at the same time allow leasing of many parcels over 70,000 

acres in just this single quarterly sale alone. If there is no threat of Oil and Gas in Nevada, why are hundreds of thousands (or 

even millions) of acres of the region already leased?

All Both emc0411GB

1430. We are concerned that BLM’s proposal to prepare multiple EISs may result in BLM applying differing and less protective 

politically motivated habitat and population protection standards to some areas. This approach will allow political pressures 

in certain states or Districts to dictate management actions, rather than ecological science. It may be appropriate to provide 

multiple detailed EISs and ecological analysis with detailed mapping to accurately describe the full environmental baseline, 

actual populations and their trajectories, habitat quality, habitat quantity, fragmentation, threats, etc. But the basic needs of 

sage-grouse are not radically different. So the same protective standards must be applied across the EIS areas. BLM cannot 

bend and reduce protections due to the strength of the livestock, energy, industrial wind or other interests in a particular EIS 

area. This is also important to protect populations that span state lines, but are being addressed on a state line basis.

All BLM emc0411GB

1431. In late 2011, BLM released its recent IMs, and an associated Report. Accompanying the IMs is a December 2011 "A Report All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-301

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

on National Sage-grouse Conservation Measures" - National Sage Grouse Technical Team (NTT). The NTT continues many 

of the same weak, ineffective, hollow, and empty measures and promises BLM has been making for a decade now. BLM 

largely continues the same failed and inadequate BMPs, Standard Operating Practices, and promises that have failed to 

conserve sage-grouse and have led to declines in abundance and distribution. These measures have been ineffective, often 

waived, and irregularly applied. This carried forward existing energy IM 2010-071 and Fire 2011-138 IMs, as well as the 2004 

Conservation Plan. BLM must fully assess all the thousands of decisions that have been issued based on similar measures, 

and examine the harms that have been caused.

1432. BLM must greatly increase protections under any Interim Process and IMs - both during and as an outcome of this process. 

It must abandon its efforts to segregate and allow extensive new harms to occupied sage-grouse habitats, as is done through 

these Ims were over six pages of BMPs and actions are applied to Priority habitat, and only 4 actions described in a single 

paragraph would apply to occupied General habitat. Other lands get no new protections at all.

All BLM emc0411GB

1433. Many measures proposed are not mandatory - not even in Priority areas. General areas receive almost no protections. If the 

weak and uncertain conservation measures listed in the NTT are not greatly expanded (much more stringent controls 

placed on grazing disturbance, for all sagebrush habitats - and not just the segregated Priority areas) and made mandatory 

scarcely anything effective will be done to "conserve" the species across vast lands areas facing a plethora of energy, 

grazing-facilitated weed invasions, and threats.

All Both emc0411GB

1434. The NTT’s Goals are inadequate. For example: "Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by 

conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other 

conservation partners" is woefully inadequate. BLM must significantly increase abundance and distribution, and state specific 

goals and time frames to achieve this. These goals must be based full consideration of the current status of habitats for each 

population. And BLM must, of course, conserve, enhance, and restore habitats and populations. The Core and Priority 

schemes will not allow this to occur. This habitat segregation immediately chops off critically important habitats, including in 

areas of Idaho and Nevada where there has already been so much sage-grouse and sagebrush loss. The Idaho model (and 

map that accompanied the BLM IM) completely excludes large areas identified as very important for conservation over the 

past seven years under the Idaho Sage-grouse Plan. Habitats essential for birds to move over the landscape and even entire 

seasonally important habitats are not included in the Priority habitat. See Nevada discussion - where even "moderate" 

importance and "transitional" habitats are excluded from the Priority scheme. BLM must conserve, enhance and restore -

not just maybe, perhaps, sometimes, do one of the above a little bit, "where appropriate."

All Both emc0411GB

1435. BLM must assess the irreparable harm that will be done by relying on the weak, loose and uncertain IMs and NTT provisions 

in the Interim for new actions, while at the same time letting a myriad of already authorized activities continue unchanged for 

years. How much additional irreversible loss will come from these weak and ineffective management schemes that also 

allows large amounts of new development?

All BLM emc0411GB

1436. We are glad to see BLM admitting "land uses, habitat treatments, and anthropogenic disturbances will have to be managed 

below thresholds necessary to conserve not only local sage-grouse populations, but sagebrush communities and landscapes 

as well." Well, what are those thresholds - and what is the risk of further harms if grazing and other disturbances continue? 

What are specific thresholds for all land uses, threats and disturbances must be clearly defined from the outset of this

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-302 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

process? What areas are at risk? We are very concerned that BLM will use greatly flawed modeled state and transition 

models in areas that have not yet suffered cheatgrass invasions, and so can recover function to a significant degree if livestock 

grazing disturbance is removed.

1437. In order to understand any threshold, a valid ecological baseline of habitat quality and quantity must be established. The 

threats caused by chronic disturbances must be fully examined. A plan must be developed to systematically roll back and 

remove these disturbances. This must include timelines and specific actions to be taken -and solid triggers for prompt and 

certain action. Specific time frames and scientifically measured habitat gains within these time frames must be required. 

Long lists of BMPs and SOPs, as with the IM derived from the NTT, and open-ended adaptive management lacking specific 

sideboards will not suffice.

All Both emc0411GB

1438. Agencies are to "develop a monitoring and Adaptive Management strategy and allow for revisions.." Conservation partners 

are referred to in the NTT. WWP hereby requests to be a "conservation partner" in this process, and to work with BLM 

to fully develop an alternative. We have just reviewed an agenda for the Idaho Sage-grouse Task Force, and see that it is being 

given until May to develop an alternative. WWP is a stakeholder, and many of our members reside in the sagebrush biome, 

use public lands for recreation, photography, birdwatching, scientific and other purposes. Our members greatly enjoy and 

appreciate the presence of sage-grouse on public lands. Further, many of our members own lands within the sage-grouse 

biome, and the range of sage-grouse.

All BLM emc0411GB

1439. The lists of Conservation Measures that provide part of the basis for the Federal Register information and this whole 

process, is limited and uncertain. BLM is not serious about making significant changes. For example with roads - BLM plans 

merely to limit travel to existing roads - not question whether any existing road is actually needed no matter what the road 

density may be.

All BLM emc0411GB

1440. For nearly all projects, BLM admits that it will be impossible to place infrastructure in already disturbed locations. This 

highlights the uncertainty with use of a laundry list of BMPs. Many of them, in a real world setting, won’t be applied. If a 

potential new disturbance area and its Footprint would impact important habitats, the use must be prohibited altogether. If 

there is a disturbed area in important habitats -shouldn’t it be restored - not sacrificed/industrialized? Where are the 

methods and standards for rolling back the development that should be put into place?

All BLM emc0411GB

1441. Any reclamation plan in any sagebrush habitat must protect and improve sage-grouse habitat - and to minimize adverse 

impacts to other native species while doing so. BLM does not even require this for the artificially segregated General 

habitats. All existing sagebrush habitats must be protected. We strongly oppose the relegation of critically important 

sagebrush habitats to the "general" habitat category with even lower measures of protection or rehab being applied. Also, for

the sacrificed general areas, there are hardly any road intrusion protections or BMPs provided at all. Example: NTT p. 65. 

This illustrates how BLM is immediately acting with the NTT and IM to reduce protections for sacrificed General Habitat. In 

Idaho - that is 1/3 or more of the sagebrush habitat that BLM has deigned to recognize (and many restoration habitats aren’t 

even included at all in the mapping). BLM must immediately stop this segregation of habitats based on woefully incomplete 

knowledge and that is greatly biased towards industry.

All BLM emc0411GB

1442. We stress that under both arbitrarily derived categories of habitat, most of what are claimed to be BMPs is merely common 

sense, and "how you build more roads" routine practices. These are the very same practices that have been occurring all 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-303

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

along, that are listed in some form in thousands of agency documents- and all have failed to conserve the species. Frankly, 

we’ve been down this road again and again - and there is no significant change of any kind here. As a basis for Interim 

protections - and discussions for what might occur under the EIS effort where BLM desperately seeks to avoid ESA listing for 

sage-grouse, the Ims and these weak, uncertain, proven-to-fail BMPs and inadequate mitigation don’t cut it.

1443. The BLM’s IM Transmission Dec 27, 2011 from the BLM Director to Field Officials p. 1 states "BLM must consider all 

applicable conservation measures when revising or amending RMPs." This means that BLM must greatly expand its 

protection measures far beyond the weak, uncertain, loose and long known to be ineffective lists of BMPs and meager and 

minimal NTT actions. This weak list includes only a limited range of measures, many with a proven history of failure. The 

Transmission also refers to a reasonable range of conservation measures - the NTT and BMP measures are not reasonable 

for conservation of sage-grouse, because they have failed so greatly in the past, and are not adequate to address the current 

threats of livestock grazing, energy development, fire, etc. The NTT PPH habitat sacrifice and segregation scheme derived 

from the failing Wyoming Core model is not reasonable. The PPH GH, Non Habitat scheme immediately sacrifices a vast 

land area of occupied sage-grouse habitats as well as habitats vital for restoration. It poses a great risk to, and jeopardizes, 

entire sage-grouse populations. Preliminary priority habitat and general habitat. Page 2 states that the Priority habitats 

were identified as having the highest conservation values with state agencies. Yet at the public meeting in Boise, IDFG said 

the maps were BLM’s and they had little input to date.

All BLM emc0411GB

1444. BLM Must Define Terminology Being Used, and This Should Have Already Been Done BLM claims to "sustain" or 

"conserve" habitats or populations, for example, in its Idaho mapping legends. But how are these being defined? The NTT 

fails to provide definitions. Restoration must be defined, as well.

All BLM emc0411GB

1445. Employ Mapping: BLM should make the Priority and General Habitat maps, and the procedures used to delineate habitat 

boundaries, available on a central website. BLM should also make available the data, maps, and decision making processes 

used to generate other designated protection areas in the EIS’s.

All Both emc0385GB

1446. The USFWS Interim Wind Guidelines from 2003 stressed mitigation by avoidance. This is essential and must be a key part 

of any viable conservation policy. It is the only policy that stands any chance of protecting sage-grouse and migratory birds.

BLM’s habitat mitigation policy at 43 C.F.R. § 1508.20, lists habitat mitigation actions. In order of descending preference: 

Avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction, and compensation. Yet avoidance is precisely the approach that BLM is not 

taking. BLM’s management approach to Gateway shows that the agency in its DEIS alternatives and mitigation justifications 

for them still does not even really consider avoiding critical habitats to be necessary. This is also not the approach of the 

Wyoming Core Model, or the derivative Priority habitat model – as shown by the NTT Report that continues to sacrifice 

even Core Areas by imposing large-scale sacrifices and development on general sage-grouse habitat, as well as habitat critical 

for other species but which do not rely on sagebrush vegetation community

All BLM emc0411GB

1447. Mitigation must be based on the full direct, indirect and cumulative environmental footprint of a project or activity, and not 

just on acreages directly disturbed by bulldozing or project facility placement. For example, the full footprint on the 

landscape crossed by a transmission line, or where a wind farm is built. The entire visual intrusion, sound disturbance, road

network, weed invasion and spread risk, cumulative fragmentation and other disturbances in the Footprint must be the basis 

for mitigation.

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-304 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1448. Unless range staff are kept at a distance from all of these new sage-grouse EIS processes, and political pressures are removed, 

we see little hope for effective conservation outcomes as a result of this current process. How will this process ensure that 

this broken agency culture is changed? This all appears to be due to political pressures to somehow keep grazing nearly all 

lands and not reduce livestock, even the ungrazable “paper” cows and sheep on permits

All Both emc0411GB

1449. Nevada and Idaho have provided much more on-line information than other states in this process. Similar information must 

be provided for expanded Scoping biome-wide

All Both emc0411GB

1450. Adaptive Management is a poor management tool for sage grouse When energy development moves in, the sage grouse 

move out, but not always immediately. Holloran (2005) was the first to document time lags in sage grouse declines following 

energy development, finding a four-year post-development decline tied to emigration of yearlings and lower survival of the 

older females who stayed in developed areas, showing strong nest-area fidelity. Kaiser (2006) also found that yearlings tend 

to abandon developed oil and gas fields. Doherty et al. (2010) corroborated this 4-year time lag with statewide data. Harju 

et al. (2010) found that the time lag of maximum decline ranged from 2 to 9 years depending on locale, and in two study areas

no time lag (effectively, instantaneous decline) was found. In addition, it can be very difficult to remove heavy industrial 

equipment if negative wildlife trends are shown; usually it is too late to undo a gas field or wind farm at a later date. The BLM 

should be wary of relying heavily on adaptive management, as declines that trigger management corrections may occur years 

after conditions have changed irreversibly, and thus the opportunity for corrective action may be missed for lack of 

immediate population response.

All BLM emc0343GB

1451. If adaptive management is pursued, there are some requirements for effective implementation: • Establish excellent 

baseline data in terms of populations and habitats so downward trends will be recognized as a departure from the norm; • 

Monitor the key attributes sensitive to change on a regular schedule, applying statistical testing to determine when significant 

change is occurring; • Identify benchmarks at which corrective action is automatically triggered; • Set out a plan of remedial 

actions in advance to identify the corrective action(s) to be taken. Too often in the past, ‘adaptive management’ has been 

code for simple negligence, an attitude of, “we’ll just approve whatever we want, and if there are negative consequences, 

we’ll take unspecified corrective action later.” However, in the absence of baseline data and monitoring and a rigorous and 

systematic monitoring system, corrective action never arrives.

All Both emc0343GB

1452. Haufler et al. (2007) created a framework for offsite mitigation that would actually require the immediate impacts of projects 

to be offset in real time, rather than having a system of tangible known impacts today with speculative promises of offsetting 

improvements to habitat in the future, which is the present model of offisite mitigation: “The fundamental concept 

underlying credit trading programs (indeed, underlying any mitigation effort) is that it is possible to compensate for lost 

“services” (or “values”) at one site (the impact site) by replacing or increasing the same services at another site (the 

mitigation site) through purposeful management at the latter site. The challenge is to develop a consistent framework for 

quantifying the services lost or gained at each site, so that all parties can have confidence that the losses and gains are in fact 

commensurate.... It is recommended that credits accrue only when beneficial change is actually documented, rather than 

when a commitment to undertake conservation action is made. This recommendation addressed the risk component 

discussed above. More risky mitigation measures can be encouraged, but would not generate credits until they are shown to 

produce desired conditions.... To ensure that a temporary shortage of ecosystem services (i.e., habitat) is not created, 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-305

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

credit units should not be released and exchanged for debit units before the actual improvements in the ecological integrity 

have occurred elsewhere on the landscape.” Such a system is diametrically opposed to today’s model of offsite mitigation, 

in which impacts are immediate but offsetting habitat improvement projects offer benefits that are deferred, if they occur at 

all.

1453. Doherty et al. (2010) advocate for offsets when levels of development exceed 1 well per square mile, but caution, “Our 

findings show how birds rather than habitat should be used as a common and biologically-based currency for estimating 

sufficiency of offsets.” To date, however, there is no scientific basis for the assertion that off-site mitigation projects have 

resulted in an increase in sage grouse populations in any instance. Thus, offsite mitigation projects are, in effect, unplanned 

experiments in which the result is just as likely a reduction in sage grouse as an increase. Until such time that a mitigation 

measure or measures can be demonstrated scientifically to increase sage grouse populations over control areas, off-site 

mitigation is best avoided. And while conservation easements may prevent sage grouse losses if (and only if) the property 

was otherwise slated for development (as asserted by Doherty et al. 2010), this results in a net “no change” in sage grouse 

numbers, not a net increase, and thus cannot compensate for losses inside developed areas. Compensatory off-site 

mitigation should in fact increase sage grouse populations elsewhere to the same degree as populations are lost inside 

developed areas. At present, such levels of increase is not supported by the available science. As Doherty et al. (2010) 

conclude, “The simplest and most cost effective first step in conservation is to halt the large-scale actions that further reduce 

or eliminate the largest populations in the best remaining landscapes.”

All Both emc0343GB

1454. Neilson et al. (2005) compared nine climate models, and found that the probability of sage grouse habitat persistence was 

greatest in south-central and southeast Wyoming. Schrag et al. (2011) preformed a similar, more recent analysis and came to 

a similar conclusion. These researchers point to southwestern Wyoming as a hotspot for Wyoming big sagebrush 

persistence, and in light of the increased risk of major West Nile virus outbreaks in projections based on climate models, 

they recommend focusing extra conservation attention on this region, calling sage grouse habitats in southwestern Wyoming 

“important core refugia.”

All Both emc0343GB

1455. Apply Strong Standards across the Entire Range in the Conservation Plan We do not believe the government will be able 

to demonstrate that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place unless the entire range of the species is considered, not 

just the lands managed by BLM and Forest Service, and included in the management regime outlined in the plan. 

Conservation measures should be uniformly strong across the range, and it is particularly important to have strong measures 

in the heart of the range, where populations are at the least risk of extirpation, as these areas represent the greatest hope 

for the survival of the species.

All Both emc0343GB

1456. Standards for Sage Grouse Conservation In terms of standards that should be set in the sage grouse Plan Amendments, we 

endorse the recommendations in the Sage Grouse Recovery Alternative submitted by WildEarth Guardians, which we 

incorporate by reference into these comments. We would also like to point out that the National Technical Team 

recommendations harmonize with this alternative to a large extent, especially on oil and gas issues, and this document is a far 

more reasonable and common-sense approach than is currently embodied in the Wyoming BLM Instruction Memoranda.

All Both emc0343GB

1457. Core Areas/Priority Habitats • Core habitats should be identified to encompass a 5-mile buffer around the most populous 

leks in each state. • Boundaries of core areas should not be altered to accommodate nonconforming uses.

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-306 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1458. Scoping issues to be addressed The Purpose and Need for the sage grouse plan amendments should be to amend existing 

RMPs to improve sage grouse protections to a level that maintains viable populations of sage grouse, at current levels or 

above, throughout the planning area.

All Both emc0343GB

1459. At minimum, the NEPA analysis should address the following: • Setting aside large tracts of Core sage grouse habitats for 

long-term conservation. • Managing for connectivity that permits the free dispersal of sage grouse between core areas. • 

Strengthening sage grouse protections inside core areas to a level that maintains or increases populations. This should be a 

standard incorporated into each RMP.

All Both emc0343GB

1460. At minimum, the NEPA analysis should address the following: We further request that the BLM undertake a 

comprehensive review of each scientific article or technical report contained in the Literature Cited section of these 

comments, so that the agency can render a decision that is fully informed by the best available science.

All BLM emc0343GB

1461. We applaud the Interior Department’s leadership to initiate a rangewide conservation strategy for sage grouse, and to base 

the provisions of that strategy in sound science. Conserving large core habitats for sage grouse can lead to many benefits, not 

just in terms or sage grouse recovery itself, but also in terms of conservation of a variety of sagebrushdependent wildlife, 

from the pygmy rabbit to the pronghorn antelope. For many years, heavy industrial use as well as unsustainable levels of 

grazing and other permitted activities have had heavy impacts on sagebrush habitats in many parts of the West, resulting in 

the decline of the sage grouse and many other species. Protecting the sage grouse will help to lead the BLM and other 

agencies toward a better balance between resource extraction and land and wildlife conservation.

All Both emc0343GB

1462. As you craft this strategy and the policies to implement it, we urge you to stand firm behind strong conservation measures 

that reflect the biological requirements of the bird as elucidated in the science. This strategy should establish core habitats 

where sciencebased protection measures are applied, ensure that protection measures are sufficiently rigorous to prevent 

grouse declines and encourage grouse recovery, and close the loopholes in the Wyoming core area strategy in all cases 

where the federal government has habitat management authority.

All Both emc0343GB

1463. (1)Where are landscapes with the highest biological value for sage-grouse? This section admits that info on seasonal habitats 

other than leks are often not known. (2) How do these landscapes differ with respect to risk from future energy 

development? (3) How does variation and juxtaposition in risk and biological values of areas affect the potential to develop 

a successful conservation strategy for sagegrouse? It is not clear how, such considerations entered into the Range-wide 

Core Modeling (Doherty et al. 2010), or into the current NTT-related BLM mapping being applied with the NTT and late 

2011 BLM IMs that are supposed to provide “interim” management, and upon which this EIS process appears to be based.

All Both emc0411GB

1464. ... combining information about the vulnerability of landscapes to anthropogenic risk enables conservation planners to 

consider aspects of urgency as well the probability for success of a given conservation strategy (Wilson et al. 2005, Copeland 

et al. 2007, Pressey and Bottrill 2008). Core regions and assessment of the potential future impacts they may experience 

represents a starting point to initiate conservation of landscapes .. But BLM has already started implementing habitat 

sacrifice under the Priority scheme, so it is not only conservation that is being implemented, it is sacrifice for development, 

too. BLM provides no information on the current habitat conditions, risks, facing populations, etc. and vulnerability of 

landscapes they inhabit to inform public scoping, comment and ACEC and alternative proposals. Full, detailed and honest 

current assessment of adverse impacts of livestock disturbance and livestock facilities on landscapes must be incorporated so

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-307

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

that risk can be understood, and action taken to eliminate and control disturbances. See Fleischner et al. 1994, Dobkin and 

Sauder (2004), Wisdom et al. 2004, Hann et al. 2003.

1465. We are concerned that increasingly studies are funded by industry, and so conclusions may be biased to some degree to 

accommodate industries that are funding research. Is that why there is repeated cheerleading for the Core Model – despite 

the findings reported showing many problems? We wonder: if several coal companies, petroleum companies, mines, etc. had 

not funded the “synthesis of these studies” acknowledged at the end of the paper, would there really have been less support 

found by the paper for the Core Model? This EIS process must carefully examine all claims and conclusions that arise from 

research funded by industry.

All Both emc0411GB

1466. Under the Core/Sacrifice Model in this process with the NTT Report and its “Priority” habitat that is derived from the 

Core-Sacrifice Model, vast areas would be omitted from consideration as priority habitat. Plus the Core Areas could be 

crisscrossed with new lines, roads, mines, wells and other development – all of which may have tremendous adverse impact 

on naïve sagebrush species, recreation, and a full suite of values of the public lands.

All Both emc0411GB

1467. So not only does this Model sacrifice occupied sage-grouse habitat lands, its use will readily enable the BLM and Forest 

Service seeking to justify massive new mining energy development, and continued chronic grazing abuses, to increase 

stresses on headwaters of watersheds, etc. And in the complex Basin and Range and other mountain-valley topography, it 

will be impossible to develop more rugged/mountainous areas without significant new roading and other disturbances within 

the sagebrush habitats that would be used to access these development sites. But under the Core Model, large numbers of 

new roads, powerlines, etc. could be built tearing through even Core/Priority habitats, providing access to the non-Core 

areas.

All Both emc0411GB

1468. what is required are constant management standards across the board All Both fla0031gb

1469. Management standards should be based on peer‐reviewed, published scientific literature and achieved through consultation 

with researchers and professionals with the most extensive experience with the species, specifically the National Technical 

Team

All Both fla0036gb

1470. The BLM must rely on the best available science concerning sage-grouse behavior, habitat needs, and conservation 

best-practices when developing land use guidelines.

All BLM flk0000gb

1471. The plan should implement the recommendations of the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team as minimum standards to 

protect sage-grouse from development. The Final Environmental Impact Statement MUST exclude any development or land 

disturbing activities in priority habitat areas, as recommended by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

All Both flk0000gb

1472. Threats to sage-grouse, including livestock grazing, fences, water developments, energy infrastructure and transmission, 

road building and maintenance, prescribed fire, and vegetative seedings and treatments, must be managed in priority and 

general habitat to enhance sage-grouse populations.

All Both flk0000gb

1473. Any proposed developments should be co-located and close to existing disturbance or infrastructure to eliminate further 

disturbance and fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat.

All Both flk0000gb

1474. Mitigation must be significant and provide for net-benefits to the sage-grouse, which is already experiencing declines in 

numbers.

All Both flk0000gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-308 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1475. The BLM should update standards based on the latest science. A scientific panel selected by the BLM outlined conservation 

measures that are an important starting point for effective conservation, in the 2011 Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. It is critical for BLM to consider implementing the following technical team 

recommendations as minimum standards

All BLM fln0000rm

1476. This iconic bird, so strongly associated with my vision of the American west, has been in decline for many decades. Almost 

half of all sagebrush homes has been destroyed and this loss has been made worse by fragmentation of the remaining 

sage-grouse homes. Threats like conversion of land to agriculture, urbanization, infrastructure development (like roads), fire, 

invasive plants, grazing, energy development, and climate change present great challenges to the survival of the sage-grouse.

All BLM fld0000rm, 

fld0000gb

1477. Establish standards for sage-grouse conservation based on the latest science: A scientific panel selected by the BLM outlined 

conservation measures that are an important starting point for effective conservation, in the 2011 'Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures'. These conservation measures should be put into practice to the fullest 

extent possible throughout the greater sage-grouse range.

All BLM fld0000rm, 

fld0000gb

1478. Establish a "net conservation benefit" standard for mitigation: Development on our public lands should come with assurances 

that our ecosystems and wildlife will be fully protected and restored. As an ESA candidate species, development in greater 

sage-grouse homes should result in more than just "holding the line" on the conservation of the species. Development 

projects that impact greater sage-grouse on our public lands should leave the sage-grouse better off than it was prior to the 

development BLM and FS should set a net conservation benefit standard for all mitigation.

All BLM FLD0000RM, 

fld0000gb

1479. I would also like to point out that some groups and individuals have had difficulty accessing information related to this 

planning process. All maps, data, and other information (whether in the possession of BLM, FS, or other agencies including 

states) should be made available to the public immediately and be easily accessible to all.

All BLM fld0000rm, 

fld0000gb

1480. I urge the BLM in its EIS to recommend that the Greater Sage Grouse be given endangered status All BLM emc0182rm

1481. Only by requiring the strongest protective measures when considering new development proposals in sage-grouse habitat 

will you be able to ensure survival of this spectacular species. To that end, I ask that you require the following conservation 

measures in the relevant Resource Management Plans and Land Management Plans. - All actions requiring authorization or 

approval of individual projects are consistent with the conservation needs of sage-grouse and do not contribute to the need 

to list the species under the Endangered Species Act.

All BLM flb0000gb

1482. Only by requiring the strongest protective measures when considering new development proposals in sage-grouse habitat 

will you be able to ensure survival of this spectacular species. To that end, I ask that you require the following conservation 

measures in the relevant Resource Management Plans and Land Management Plans. - Binding standards and guidelines on 

management of sagebrush habitat for sage-grouse conservation in both Resource Management Plans and Land Management 

Plans.

All BLM flb0000gb

1483. The plan amendments should avoid inflexible management standards. Rather than impose an inflexible, broad-brush 

management prescription for the Grouse, I suggest the BLM adopts a "landscape specific" approach to minimize the impacts 

on both the Grouse and the recreating public. For example, I oppose the provision mandating that any "anthropogenic 

disturbances" cover less than 3% of the total sage grouse habitat. Without any flexibility, the implementation of this standard 

All Both fle0000gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-309

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

on the ground will be extremely difficult. Indeed, the agencies may be forced to restrict activities that have been found to 

have little to no impact on the grouse.

1484. Support the Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative (the conservation community alternative) All Both flf0000gb 

flf0000rm

1485. All federal departments and agencies that manage sage-grouse habitat should be involved in the planning process, including 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Park Service, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and the Departments of Energy and Defense. All federal lands with Greater Sage-Grouse habitat should be 

included in the planning process--currently millions of acres of federal lands harboring Greater Sage-Grouse are excluded.

All Both flc0000gb

1486. Sage-grouse occur on a complex sagebrush-dominated landscape with tremendous variability locally and range wide. It is 

ecologically impossible to regulate for improved sage-grouse performance with a “one-size-fits-all” set of regulatory 

measures. For the National Sage-Grouse Strategy to be successful, it is essential that it allow for regional and site-specific 

approaches to conserving sage-grouse and habitat, incorporating expertise of local land-users and experts such as ranchers 

and locally knowledgeable range scientists.

All Both fli0000gb

1487. There are places here in Washington state where sagebrush habitat supports Sharp‐tailed Grouse as well as Greater 

Sage‐Grouse. Both species have lost acres and acres of habitat. I have done lek searches and counts and am very concerned 

with any developments that will further imperil the habitat that they require to regain lost ground.

All Both fla0067gb

1488. Scientific research done by your agencies and others gives us an opportunity to learn how to mitigate and/or prevent further 

damages to this long‐neglected ecosystem, but science‐based management also demands political will and wherewithal to 

carry it through. Sage‐grouse range includes many jurisdictions, with many vital missions and responsibilities, but habitat 

inclusion and agency cooperation is key to preserving this species and the ecosystem as a whole.

All Both fla0086gb

1489. Greater Sage‐Grouse habitat is an extremely valuable component in a mosaic of habitats, all of which contribute to our 

planet's diversity, thereby strengthening our nation as a whole. We need to look not only at the small picture, but at the large 

one.

All Both fla0109gb

1490. In addition to livestock production which is nearly everywhere, impacts from ORVS, oil and gas development and other land 

uses that fragment habitat and introduce weeds, etc. should be minimized.

All BLM flb0045gb

1491. As you develop the new conservation measures to protect the greater sage-grouse and its habitat, I urge you to use the best 

available science to guide your decisions. Greater sage-grouse once numbered more than 16 million across the West -- their 

population has plummeted to an estimated 500,000 individuals spread across 11 states, primarily due to intensive livestock 

grazing, energy development, fires, and conversion of sagebrush habitat for agriculture. Sage-grouse populations have been 

so diminished that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determined that the species warranted listing under the Endangered 

Species Act.

All Both flb0000GB and 

RM

1492. All actions requiring authorization or approval of individual projects are consistent with the conservation needs of 

sage-grouse and do not contribute to the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act.

All Both flb0000gb and 

rm

1493. Binding standards and guidelines on management of sagebrush habitat for sage-grouse conservation in both Resource 

Management Plans and Land Management Plans.

All Both flb0000gb and 

rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-310 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1494. All data and maps held by Federal agencies should be accessible by the public, especially to environmental watchdog groups. All BLM fld0005rm, 

fld0005gb

1495. I am not sure how to state next opinion without offending someone (not intended to) but here is my opinion anyway; As a 

resident of Lemhi county for 53 plus years I have seen a lot of changes and it appears that the more our Government 

agencies—Fish and Game, USF&W, NOAA etc put pressure on us‐(bill payers) and the Land management 

agencies‐USFS/BLM/etc that the worse it gets for the species. In other words I think we are managing them to death. What 

happened to the thought pattern that says: live and let live, man needs to quit playing God, let nature take its course. Any one

of these could be applied to a lot of the issues talked about above

All Both emc0045GB

1496. In identifYing greater sage-grouse habitat requirements and best management practices, BLM and the USFS must rely upon 

peer-reviewed scientific literature and, in the absence of knowledge, should allow activities to proceed based upon the 

principals of avoidance, minimization and mitigation

CO Both emc0399GB

1497. Another disturbing element is the 3% Disturbance Threshold. The National Technical Team Report notes that, " .. .in 

priority habitats where 3% threshold is already exceeded, no further anthropogenic disturbance will be permitted ... ". Many 

questions arise: Is this including public and private property? Does the BLM dictate what and how on private property? How 

was the 3% area determined? Is this specific to only a section, an acre or the entire "Priority Habitat Area"? As discussed 

above with the maps, this is a very wide stroke, and could and should be specific to the true and defined habitat.

CO Both emc0056RM

1498. Although the Forest Service may not have a lot of sage grouse crucial habitat but because there is so little contigious habitat 

that can be managed left, it is very important habitat. I strongly recommend that the Forest Service stay engaged as a crucial 

habitat manager in this local area.

CO USFS cfc0013RM

1499. On December 13, 2011 R. Watson submitted written comments supported by expert repmis to the BLM on our behalf with 

respect to the BLM Kremmling Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/DEIS) 

and the letter and the reports are incorporated by reference (R. Watson's Comment Letter

CO BLM emc0057RM

1500. In addition, several individuals who are familiar with the Ranch submitted comments describing the surface resourcesthat 

would be jeopardized by oil and gas leasing: Letter from Tim Thompson attached to R, Watson's Comment Letter as Exhibit 

7; Letter from Nellie Thompson attached to R, Watson's Comment Letter as Exhibit 8; Letter from Paul Menhcnnet 

attached to R, Watson's Comment Letter as Exhibit 9; and Letter from Dean Billington, Bull Basin Guides and Outfitters 

attached toR, Watson's Comment Letter as Exhibit 10 (all of the foregoing comments are incorporated by reference),

CO BLM emc0057RM

1501. BLM concedes that "no decision would be approved that would jeopardize the continued existence of plant and terrestrial 

wildlife species that are listed, officially proposed, or candidates for listing as Threatened and Endangered," and that it is 

committed to preventing "the need for listing Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive Species under the ESA" by "improving 

[special status species] habitats to a point where their Special Status recognition is no longer warranted." DRMP/DEIS, Ch. 

4 at 4-192. "Candidate species, species proposed for listing, and Sensitive Species will be given equal consideration as

[Threatened and Endangered] listed species." Id. Ch. 1 at l-27. BLM further commits itself "to maintain and improve habitat" 

for wildlife and as to sagebrush habitat, "to reduce continued habitat loss and fragmentation." DRMP/DEIS at ES-2.

CO BLM emc0057RM

1502. significant problem for BLM's analysis and proposed mrtrgation for sage-grouse habitat is that the CDOW map of CO BLM emc0057RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-311

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse habitat upon which BLM has relied, is not accurate for site-specific management. !d. at 2. The CDOW 

sage-grouse core areas were developed at statewide spatial scales and were never intended by CDOW to be utilized for 

site-specific consideration as BLM has done in the DRMP/DEIS. Jd. The CDOW maps simply do not accurately reflect the 

habitats occupied by sage-grouse as is made abundantly clear by Dr. Holloran's on-site survey. Exhibit II. The conclusions of

CDOW (L. Sidenar, CDOW Comment, February 17, 201 0) and Dr. Holloran support moving the occupied area boundary 

line further west and closing the area to oil and gas leasing and including the greater area in the ACEC. See Exhibit II at 2; see 

also Stolz EA Comments (Ex. 1) at Ex. B.

1503. We are very concerned about the lack of scientific validity for the parameters and conditions currently proposed by the BLM 

in the DRMP/DEIS. It is clear that the approach that is currently practiced and proposed has not done anything to stem the 

steep downward trajectory of the sage grouse population. Accordingly, we implore the BLM to place NSO restrictions on all 

areas designated as sage grouse priority (or core) habitat. It is imperative that there is no leasing activity within these critical 

areas and significant protections should be afforded to undisturbed continuous unfragmented habitat given that its scarcity. 

Furthermore, in areas designated as sage grouse occupied habitat, there should be minimal disturbance allowed - not more 

than 1% within 4 miles in any direction of a lek. All human disturbances (roads, ditches, buildings, hay meadows, and any 

other disturbance that deviates from the native sage bmsh vegetation) should count toward the percentage of disturbed 

area. Split estate parcels should be given at least the same protections as BLM owned fee parcels. It is illogical to afford them 

any less protections.

CO BLM emc0057RM

1504. Ultimately, Garfield County is concerned with the very restrictive approach suggested in the GSGCM Report because it 

seems to ignore the multiple use principles required in the BLMs' own Mission Statement restated here: It is the mission of 

the BLM, an agency of the department of the Interior, to manage BLM-administered lands and resources in a manner that 

best serves the needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield 

taking into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources.

CO BLM emc0058RM

1505. Primary and General Sage-Grouse Habitat in Garfield County In reviewing CPW mapped preliminary priority greater 

sage-grouse habitat within Garfield County, habitats are limited to a combination of public (BLM) and private lands on mesa 

tops of the western Roan Plateau, and southern end of the Piceance Basin. As the BLM is aware, this area also contains vitally 

important natural gas and shale reserves, important enough for much of this area to once be part of the Naval Oil Shale 

Reserve. The total 148,858 acres of CPW mapped Preliminary Priority Habitat in Garfield County includes 24,821 acres of 

BLM managed lands and 123,718 acres of private lands, which ends up being a total of 8% of the land base within the County. 

Approximately 63% of the County is already under the management of the public trust (including the State of Colorado, US 

Forest Service, and the BLM), and the 123,718 acres of preliminary primary habitats on private lands ends up being a very 

significant 18% of all private lands within the County (see Table 1 below/ and Figures at end of the document). When 

including mapped General Habitat, there could be additional impacts to 23% of all private lands in the County for sage-grouse 

management. NOTE: This comment references attachments and Table 1: Sage Grouse Habitats in Garfield County.

CO BLM emc0058RM

1506. The BLM's GSGCW report would, where a federal nexus is involved, place further limitations and conditions on the 

management of these public and a significant portion of private lands within the County. While the acres of Preliminary 

Primary Habitat occurring within Garfield County are significant at the County levet at the scale of greater sage-grouse 

CO BLM emc0058RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-312 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

habitats, it comprises a very small percentage of all occupied sage-grouse habitats. The USFWS currently estimates that 

approximately 1.6 million acres is currently occupied by greater sage-grouse in the U.S. (USFWS 2010L and while this is only 

56% of estimated historically occupied habitat, the contribution of habitats in Garfield County to this species, which occurs 

at the extreme southern end of this species range, should also be considered when accounting for the potential significant 

impact to private and public land base in the County.

1507. Also a fact that is not accounted for or disclosed in the GSGCM report, is that the literature cited to support the 

Conservation Measures are from studies which all took place in highly developed natural gas and CBM fields in Wyoming, 

where in many cases the density of well pads was often near 15 pads per section (40 acre spacing), and that the studies took 

place in areas that also had other significant surface impacts (e.g., water evaporation ponds, roads, pipelines, compressor 

stations and gas plants, as well as infill projects; e.g., Jonah Field (I & II}, Pinedale Anticline, Powder River Basin, Continental 

Divide-Crestone project, etc.). We feel that while these studies may be applicable for sage-grouse direct and indirect impacts 

adjacent to high density gas field development in Wyoming, it is not accurate or appropriate to reference the types of 

impacts seen in some of the highest density gas fields in the U.S. and apply conservation measures arbitrarily and equally to

all habitats in all States and Counties. We interpreted the results presented in these articles as indicating that within 0.25 to 

1.5 miles of very intensive natural gas/CBM field development there are significant decreases in sagegrouse habitat utilization, 

and that the further habitats are from intensive land use activities, the less impact there is. But we again contend that the

results of these studies do not indicate that 4 mile buffers are warranted for the protection of the species, and that the 

GSGCM report, while referencing these studies as its scientific basis, does not accurately reflect the facts presented in the 

studies, and if anything presents a biased interpretation of the results. The GSGCM report's Conservation Measures appear 

to only consider the needs sage-grouse in remaining habitats in Wyoming, and does not accurately account for or respect the 

ongoing uses, needs, of other permitted uses of public, and more importantly, of private lands. While the long-term 

protection of greater sage-grouse is also important to the County, we believe that more balance and a more realistic land use 

management process is needed and should be incorporated into any management planning efforts.

CO Both emc0058RM

1508. Range Management / Grazing Range Management or Grazing (domestic livestock and wild ungulate) is a very important 

component of Garfield County's traditional ranching heritage and wildlife herd management which requires working 

together with our public lands. In preparation of the EIS, Garfield County recommends the BLM work closely with the 

Cattleman's Association and the Wool Growers Association for both Colorado and other states which are also affected by 

the EIS to gain their valuable input into this process.

CO Both emc0058RM

1509. Appropriately, the GSGCM report does not apply, nor does Garfield County suggest, the 4-mile 'no surface occupancy' and 

a maximum 3% disturbance approaches that would effectively prohibit existing grazing on established allotments. Garfield 

County supports the approach provided in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for the 

appropriate management of domestic livestock and wild ungulates. In doing so, the EIS should carefully consider and 

potentially implement the following goals: 1) Continue to foster a sustainable and economically viable ranching community 

while also providing high-quality sage-grouse habitat; and 2) In conjunction with sustainable livestock interests and sport 

hunting industries, ensure that grazing by other ungulates is not adversely affecting sage-grouse habitats.

CO Both emc0058RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-313

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1510. The County finds these strategies [the comprehensive conservation strategies produced by the BLM/Garfield County/other 

stakeholders workgroup that wrote the Parachute-Piceance-Roan Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan] to be a more 

realistic in managing sage-grouse in the Parachute Creek, Piceance Creek, and Roan Creek areas than the approach taken in 

the GSGCM report and suggests the BLM use this as the basis for their approach, or at least assesses this plan as a viable 

Alternative in any NEPA process.

CO Both emc0058RM

1511. The County recommends the BLM to continue supporting the primary goal it has already agreed to implement in the CPW 

Conservation Plan which is to ''Maintain a viable population for GSG while developing energy & mineral resources" which is 

to be implemented by actions such as Investigate opportunities and provide incentives to promote cluster development in 

key GSG habitats. Cluster the development of roads, pipelines, electric lines, and other facilities, and use existing, combined 

corridors where possible." (See page 87 to 93 in the CPW Conservation Plan for the comprehensive set of goals, objectives, 

and actions relating to the energy industry and mineral development.)

CO BLM emc0058RM

1512. A very common concern from industry and private land owners in northwest Colorado is not the need or requirement to 

protect the environment, but is the repeated changes in regulatory guidance and unknown potential impacts from long, 

drawn-out environmental planning processes. Because of this, Garfield County has seen many operators and private 

markets/investors hold off or postpone projects and investments in capital and hiring of employees given the length of time 

and uncertainties given NEPA processes and almost inevitable litigation. Additionally, during our review of the greater 

sage-grouse issue for this scoping effort, we were quite surprised at the amount of literature and planning documents all 

recently completed for this species, and we again raise the concern over repetitive planning processes which introduce 

uncertainty to our constituents and industry. To briefly review the guidance documents which are all designed to provide a 

"management plan" for the public and industry to plan around, we have observed and reviewed the following: 1. A Report 

on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (BLM 2011) 2. Colorado greater sage-grouse conservation plan 

(CPW, 2008) 3. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats (Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, 2004). 4. Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse on Public Lands in the Western U.S. Implications of 

Recovery and Management Policies (Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands, 2002) 5. Greater sage-grouse 

comprehensive strategy (WAFWA, 2006) 6. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan: Parachute-Piceance-Roan (BLM, 

CPW and others 2008) 7. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats (2011) 8. 

Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats (Connelly et al. 2000) 9. National Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004) 10. US Fish and Wildlife Service 12 Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater 

SageGrouse (2010) These reports are in addition to the volumes of scientific articles on sage-grouse ecology, indeed 

sage-grouse is likely one of the more studied species, and there is a large amount of scientific literature available. Garfield 

County contends that there are already existing and approved plans for greater sage-grouse within northwest Colorado, and 

having the public, industry and cooperating agencies enter into yet again another "planning effort" immediately on the heels 

of recently completed planning efforts is an undue burden on already taxed public resources, and will again provide another 

reason for industry and private enterprise to seek other areas for doing business.

CO Both emc0058RM

1513. We sincerely appreciate the ability to work with the BLM in their scoping process for the EIS. In addition to our comments, 

Garfield County, as a Cooperating Agency, requests additional 60 days be granted by the BLM to compose any further 

CO BLM emc0058RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-314 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

comments since the mapping of the Priority and General Habitat by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife was not made available 

to us for view until March 13, 2012 which is only 11 days prior to the deadline for comments. Please do not hesitate to 

contact us should you have any questions or comments. NOTE: This scoping letter [emc0058RM] included six maps

1514. First, we request that the BLM EIS process consider the voluntary commitment that the local Sage-Grouse Work Groups in 

Colorado have demonstrated toward improving habitat conditions for sage-grouse. Local Work Groups have developed 

long-standing, cooperative working arrangements across private and public lands. For example, in North Park, the Owl 

Mountain Partnership, a partner to the NPSGWG, has formed public/private partnerships and developed large-scale grazing 

management plans across BLM, State, and private lands. The grazing management plans have improved grazing management 

and improved habitat conditions fo sage-grouse. The NPSGWG requests that the BLM analyze the impacts which "over 

regulation" might have on these cooperative and voluntary efforts to conserve sage-grouse. Regulating all uses on the BLM 

so they benefit sage-grouse over other uses, as suggested in the NTT report, may have an increased negative effect on 

greater sage-grouse because people will no longer voluntarily engage in proactive practices for the benefit of the 

sage-grouse. In addition, displacing activities from BLM to private lands could potentially have negative impacts to some of 

the most productive sage-grouse habitat on private lands. We request that the BLM consider these negative impacts in the 

EIS analysis.

CO BLM emc0060RM

1515. The NPSGWG also requests that the EIS consider the variability in BLM Field Offices and how they have managed grazing in 

the past. The EIS should not be a "one-size-fits-all" approach. As mentioned above, the Kremmling Field Office has been 

extremely proactive in terms of grazing management. Only one allotment in last five years has not met minimum land health 

standards. BLM, HPP, and CPW have implemented a seeding project and grazing deferment in the allotment to bring it back 

to minimum standards. Grazing management in North Park is working. In 2010, the CPW conducted over 100 vegetation 

measurements at sage-grouse nest and female late-summer use sites. Vegetation measurements indicate that grazing 

management on BLM and private land is meeting the structural guidelines outlined in the Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan (2008). CPW also documented good nesting success in 2010 with 47% of nests hatching at least one egg 

and better nest success in 2011 with 64% of nests hatching. North Park probably has the most stable greater sage-grouse 

population in Colorado and we believe this is a result of the good grazing management in Jackson County.

CO BLM emc0060RM

1516. As discussed above, North Park has a very stable sage-grouse population. Anthropogenic land uses have occurred on the 

BLM in the past and we have been able to maintain a healthy sagegrouse population. We have had oil and gas development 

(e.g. the McCallum Oil Field), strip mining, gravel pits, power lines and limited amount of road development. Sage-grouse are 

present even though there has been historical anthropogenic disturbance. We are requesting that analyses be conducted to 

show how the current BLM regulations are not adequate to maintain sage-grouse in North Park. We recommend that the 

BLM analyze disturbance through time, possibly through historic aerial photographs, in conjunction with historical 

sage-grouse population data to determine the historical amount of anthropogenic disturbance in North Park that has been 

consistent with the maintenance of a stable sage-grouse population.

CO BLM emc0060RM

1517. The PPH and PGH maps provided by the CPW include almost all of the sagebrush basin in Jackson County as PPH. Therefore 

any actions taken from the NTT Sage-Grouse EIS that apply to PPH will affect the vast majority of Jackson County. The 

NPSGWG acknowledges that the majority of North Park is breeding, summer, or winter habitat for sage-grouse. However, 

CO BLM emc0060RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-315

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the NPSGWG requests that the BLM analyze if mapping the entire sagebrush basin in North Park as PPH is necessary to 

maintain sage-grouse in Jackson County. The NPSGWG also requests that the BLM have the ability to conduct local 

site-evaluations to insure that the site is indeed sagegrouse habitat. CPW’s mapping was done on a broad scale and there are 

likely some non-habitat inclusions where some amount of development could occur while also minimizing impacts to

sage-grouse habitat. The NPSGWG also requests that the BLM EIS define the PPH and PGH maps as working maps with the 

ability to changes as habitat conditions change.

1518. The NTT Report recommends a 3% disturbance threshold across landownership. At the time of the Draft, the EIS should 

clarify what is meant by 3% disturbance and if it includes habitat treatments or just anthropogenic disturbance such as roads, 

well pads, and power lines. The EIS should clarify how this analysis will be done, especially when considering disturbance on 

private lands. The EIS should also include an analysis of the current/baseline amount of disturbance within PPH in North Park. 

Because BLM regulations do not apply on private lands, the BLM should address why private lands cannot be excluded from 

the PPH and PGH maps for the purposes of this EIS.

CO BLM emc0060RM

1519. When developing the alternatives for the EIS it should be remembered that the Parachute-Piceance-Roan (PPR) portion of 

the sage grouse population has probably always been marginally hanging on and management actions and limitations applied 

to core grouse areas, will make little or no difference to the grouse numbers in the PPR area. This is definitely a case where 

one management prescription does not fit all. In looking at the Priority Habitat Map, it would appear that all areas within 4 

miles of an active lek are presented as being equal when this clearly is not the case.

CO Both emc0061RM

1520. The Moffat County workgroup utilized much the same process in development of the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage 

Grouse Conservation Plan (April, 2008 ). The main difference between the processes was that the consensus on 

management direction was harder to reach and took many more years in Moffat County. In that Moffat County has the bulk 

of the sage grouse population in Colorado, they have been dealing with grouse issues much longer than most other areas. 

The advantage of the Northwest Plan over the PPR plan is that during the additional years it took to complete, many of the 

conservation strategies in the Northwest Plan were implemented and have seen measureable positive effects. Given the 

presence of many localized conservation plans which come with some level of public acceptance, it seems that an alternative 

that embraces these plans collectively would be an efficient and effective approach to management overall.

CO Both emc0061RM

1521. The Resource Management Plan Amendment for the White River Field Office of the BLM ( Feb 2012) was issued as a Draft 

for comment to Cooperating Agencies last month. Because of the draft to those with Cooperating Agency status, I will not 

go details of the alternatives. However, the options for management actions presented therein are far less severe than those 

presented in the Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. In that these RMPA alternatives are 

being developed with local input and the knowledge and expertise of a local biologist, the WRFO RMPA alternatives should 

be given priority in the development of this EIS.

CO Both emc0061RM

1522. Another localized plan that took considerable time and resources to develop is the Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan 

Amendment and EIS (August 2006). In the Roan Plateau Plan, sage grouse were not a major factor. However, the approach 

to timing limitations and surface occupancy taken in this plan, with phasing and rolling disturbance thresholds, is a creative 

approach that should be considered in the Sage Grouse EIS.

CO Both emc0061RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-316 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1523. WSCOGA believes that the failure to provide the public ample opportunity to review and comment on the priority 1 maps 

represents a critical stumbling in the required public process and may have future consequences as the amendment process 

proceeds.

CO BLM emc0062RM

1524. Because designation of sage-grouse habitat will be a principle decision making mechanism for the agency as it relates to 

conservation implementation, BLM cannot rely upon these maps to determine the precise lands to be affected by the RMP 

amendments until the public has had an opportunity to fully evaluate, critique and understand the criteria used in establishing 

those maps, the basis for the criteria used in establishing those maps and the data used to develop those maps. To this end, 

the agency must extend the scoping period for the NW Colorado Sage-Grouse EIS to allow interested parties the 

appropriate forty-five day period for scoping. The agency should also accept and consider comments on the habitat 

designations during the public comment period provided on any draft EIS.

CO BLM emc0062RM

1525. The National Technical Team (NTT) recommendations, which for practical purposes function as the foundation of BLM’s 

approach, state that "the conservation strategy most likely to meet the objective of maintaining or increasing sage-grouse 

distribution and abundance is to exclude energy development and other large scale disturbances from priority habitats." 

NTT, 21. In our view, reliance on the NTT report (the "Report") and, in particular this recommendation, inappropriately 

narrows the purpose and need for the RMP amendments in a manner that that may violate the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). WSCOGA concerns are elevated as it relates to the BLM’s reliance on the Report when the Report was in no 

way subjected or exposed for public review and comment. In our view, the lack of public involvement with respect to the 

Report exacerbates the perception that the narrow purpose and need was tailored to a pre-determined outcome. "Land 

use plans ensure public lands are managed in accordance with the intent of Congress as stated in FLPMA (43 U.S.C. § 1701 

et seq.), under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield." See BLM Handbook H-1610-1, Land Use Planning and 43 

U.S.C. § 1712(c)(1). As required by BLM policy and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), public lands must 

be managed in a manner that: protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and 

atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public 

lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; that will provide 

for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; and that recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of 

minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands by encouraging collaboration and public participation throughout the 

planning process. Land use plans are one of the primary mechanisms for guiding BLM activities to achieve the mission and 

goals outlined in the Department of the Interior (DOI) Strategic Plan. As such, land use plans must consider not merely one 

aspect of BLM’s multiple-use mandate, but all aspects, including human occupancy and use and mineral development.

CO BLM emc0062RM

1526. The agency must broaden the scope of its purpose and need, and incorporate sufficient alternatives and resource analyses, 

so as not to commit to indefensible predetermined outcomes at the expense of one resource value over another.

CO BLM emc0062RM

1527. The proposed EIS and SEIS will cover a significant portion of Western Colorado’s counties; the center of which are Moffat 

and Jackson counties, there is major impact in Garfield, Rio Blanco, Grand and Routt Counties as well as a more limited 

impact in Mesa and Summit Counties. Ranching, natural resource development and tourism are major economic drivers for 

the communities and residents of these counties. For decades, these communities have worked with BLM to develop 

responsible RMP’s to protect the public lands in these areas while working with organizations to allow for reasonable 

CO Both emc0068RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-317

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

economic growth and stimulation.

1528. CLUB 20 believes that local, state, and range-wide plans should work in cooperation with existing land uses to manage sage 

grouse and sage grouse habitat. Due to interdependence between varying land uses, it is imperative that sage grouse 

management does not take an overriding role and is balanced with existing land uses. Successful grouse conservation is 

dependent upon the mutual well-being of the human communities that live in Western Colorado. Sage grouse conservation 

goals must sustain the social, cultural, and economic lives of the citizens of Western Colorado, as grouse and humans are 

mutually dependent upon the habitat.

CO Both emc0068RM

1529. The objective to disturb no more than 3% of habitat regardless of ownership is totally objectionable. Areas of private 

ownership should not be considered in this 3%. The area covered by the 3% is not defined - is it 3% of the entire map or 3% 

of a section? Livestock should not be included in this.

CO Both emc0069RM

1530. I would request that BLM/FS consider the conservation plans that local groups have completed in planning conservative 

measures for sage grouse. These groups need to be involved in all future discussions and decisions.

CO Both emc0069RM

1531. TC recognizes the need to develop a plan that will be effective in protecting and conserving the Greater sage grouse, so that 

future listing as threatened or endangered is unnecessary. We also recognize the value, however, of the many voluntary 

efforts already underway through the various initiatives, conservation plans, candidate conservation plans with assurances, 

and local working groups that have converged to protect and conserve the sage grouse population. It is, therefore, important 

that the BLM recognize and build on the extensive planning efforts that have already taken place including the Moffat County 

Land Use Plan, the NW Colorado Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan, and the Little Snake Field Office Resource 

Management Plan. It is our understanding that efforts initiated under the North Park Sage Grouse Working Group, and 

implemented through the CORMS's coal mine reclamation program have achieved some success (Borg Strip Mine, Canadian, 

Strip, and Marr Mine) in both reestablishing sage grouse habitat, and encouraging grouse utilization of reclaimed mined lands. 

A wide range of public input was received in the drafting of these plans with broad stakeholder participation and submission

of scientific evidence. The recommendations and results achieved through these plans provide a practical, workable

alternative to the exclusionary approach advocated by the National Technical Team Report in areas such as grazing, wildfire, 

mineral and non- mineral leases, and wildlife management. Whereas the locally developed plans emphasis co-existence 

between sage grouse conservation and other necessary uses of the land, the Technical Team report emphasizes sage grouse 

protection above all, in an exclusionary approach. Because of the unique situation which occurs in Northwest Colorado, 

where entire counties may be impacted, we urge the BLM to provide alternatives which emphasize multiple use of the lands 

with compensatory mitigation.

CO Both emc0071RM

1532. In conclusion, Twentymile Coal, LLC urges a balanced approach in preparing an Environmental Impact Statement which 

presents a wide range of alternatives that recognize and give effect to not only conservation of the sage grouse, but allow for 

continued economic activity in Northwest Colorado. This region contains a high percentage of federal lands, but also is 

heavily dependent on the use of those lands for mining, oil and gas development, grazing, and recreation to sustain the 

population that lives in the area. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal, and urge your careful and 

thoughtful consideration of the considerations outlined in this letter as you move forward.

CO Both emc0071RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-318 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1533. Wexpro and its predecessor operating companies have operated and developed oil and gas leases in the Hiawatha and 

Powder Wash areas since the late 1920's. During this time we have been able to work in cooperation with both federal and 

state agencies to further development while protecting wildlife habitat and preserving archeological finds during site 

construction. Recently, the Little Snake Field Office and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife department consulted with 

Wexpro in adjusting some proposed staked sites for future drilling. Habitat will be preserved in this instance through the 

cooperation of Wexpro and these agencies. Specifically, of four staked locations, one was moved closer to a county road, 

two will be accessed from a reasonable expansion of existing locations, and only one site was left as proposed. With the 

new Sage Grouse proposed EIS, and specifically the Priority Habitat mapping in our existing fields, Wexpro is concerned that 

we may lose the flexibility to work with these same agencies where ground-level decisions are more in the public interest 

and are generally more effective in protecting Sage Grouse habitat. Wexpro will always be willing to adjust its development 

and take any mitigation measures necessary to protect wildlife and the environment in general, through location changes, 

wildlife timing stipulations, and proactive reclamation.

CO Both emc0073RM

1534. The bright line prohibitions mandated by "no surface occupancy" areas where "no future development" can occur may seem 

reasonable on paper, but may actually be counterproductive when compared to boots-on-the-ground oversight. We believe 

that a more reasonable approach would be to designate sensitive habitat areas, and then only allow development in or 

around such designations after review by BLM and state stewards with the operator as described in the recent examples 

above. This would not only better protect Sage Grouse habitat, but would also be more in keeping with the multiple use and 

public interest standards traditionally underpinning recent RMP and EIS documents issued in the State of Colorado.

CO BLM emc0073RM

1535. There are five Resource Management Plans that outline the regulatory framework for sagegrouse conservation on BLM lands 

in Colorado. The Little Snake Plan was finalized on October 17, 2011. The remaining plans are currently under revision. The 

Final Little Snake RMP, and the draft RMPs issued through the remaining planning processes to-date, do not contain adequate

regulatory mechanisms to conserve greater sage-grouse. Implementation of these plans as they currently stand will increase 

the need to protect the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act. It is imperative that sage-grouse 

conservation measures in all five Colorado RMPs be substantially improved through the national planning process.

CO BLM emc0051RM

1536. The Little Snake Field Office (LSFO) has the distinction of being home to not only the largest greater sage-grouse population 

in Colorado, but also part of the most important population in the eastern half of the species’ range, the Wyoming Basin 

regional population. Greater sage-grouse habitat in the LSFO includes a small area that supports an especially high abundance 

of breeding birds per unit area, relative to the entire eastern range of sage-grouse. The final LSFO RMP includes protections 

for greater sage-grouse that are an improvement over those outlined in any other final RMP to-date in Colorado. However, 

these measures are far from adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve this important population, as evidenced by

concerns expressed by both state and federal wildlife agencies, referenced throughout this letter.

CO BLM emc0051RM

1537. Major concerns about the proposed LSFO plan include the following: 1. The plan does not set any high-priority habitat aside 

from development. 2. The plan does not adequately protect greater sage-grouse from the impacts of oil and gas 

development. a. The plan relies on voluntary measures to protect habitat on existing oil and gas leases. b. The surface 

disturbance caps and other measures proposed to limit the impacts of oil and gas development are inadequate. 3. The plan 

does not include measures to protect greater sage-grouse from impacts of activities other than oil and gas development. 4. 

CO BLM emc0051RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-319

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Provisions for monitoring and adaptive management are insufficient.

1538. The plan does not set any high-priority habitat aside from development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)2 have both recommended that high priority habitat in the Little Snake Field Office be 

set-aside from development and managed as protected core areas. FWS comments on the proposed plan state that, “For 

high priority habitats, we recommend avoiding energy development and similar activities, and instead, managing them as 

protected core areas.”3 CPW further emphasizes this, stating that, “...establishment of large greater sage-grouse refuges 

...may ultimately prove to be the only effective means of conserving greater sage-grouse populations in areas of extensive oil

and gas development.” CPW goes on to recommend that the LSFO preserve options for establishment of future refuges by 

retaining unleased minerals, and avoiding the re-leasing of minerals in high priority habitats.4 The final LSFO plan fails to 

set-aside high priority sagegrouse habitat from development, or preserve options to set-aside core areas in the future.

CO BLM emc0051RM

1539. The plan does not include measures to protect greater sage-grouse from impacts of activities other than oil and gas 

development. The final RMP does not include any specific measures to protect greater sage-grouse from the impacts of 

non-oil and gas related activities (e.g. transmission lines, wind energy developments, mining, etc.), even in high priority 

sage-grouse habitats. The 0.6 mile lek buffer and surface disturbance restrictions apply only to oil and gas development 

activities. The final RMP includes language stating that BLM may hold non-oil and gas related development to a higher

standard in high and medium priority habitats. It states that BLM may require avoidance or additional mitigation, and that 

BLM may not approve projects in high and medium priority habitats.25 The FWS comments on the proposed plan suggest 

that the FWS does not consider this type of language to be an adequate regulatory mechanism, as it does not provide a high

degree of certainty regarding what specific measures are likely to be implemented in the future to protect sage-grouse from 

the likely adverse effects of a variety of potentially harmful activities

CO BLM emc0051RM

1540. Provisions for monitoring and adaptive management are insufficient. The proposed plan does not establish an effective 

monitoring and adaptive management process with performance based standards. The plan does not spell out triggers for 

adaptive management, and clearly specify the consequences that will result if triggers are reached. 27 Monitoring and 

adaptive management are not required or adequately funded. It is clear that the LSFO plan does not currently include 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve greater sage-grouse.

CO BLM emc0051RM

1541. The five Colorado RMPs within the range of the greater sage-grouse must be amended to include adequate protections for 

greater sage-grouse populations. It is critical that the Little Snake RMP be amended through the national planning process, to

address the concerns outlined above, in order to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the largest population 

of greater sage-grouse in Colorado. Similarly, the Kremmling, Colorado River Valley, White River and Grand Junction Field 

Offices have not yet incorporated adequate regulatory mechanisms for greater sage-grouse through their ongoing planning 

processes. For example, the greater sage-grouse protections in the preferred alternatives of the draft Kremmling and 

Colorado River Valley Resource Management Plans have some improved protections when compared with existing plans, 

but still fail to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to address threats to greater sage-grouse populations.

CO BLM emc0051RM

1542. We feel that the national planning process provides an important opportunity to implement meaningful protections to 

ensure long-term conservation of greater sage-grouse in Colorado. We ask that all five Colorado field offices be included in 

CO Both emc0051RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-320 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

one of the regional EISs that will be prepared as part of the national planning process, and that all five RMPs be amended 

through the national planning process to include adequate protections to maintain and increase greater sagegrouse 

distribution and abundance in Colorado.

1543. The MPSGWG believes strongly that the EIS should utilize existing management plans at the state and local working group 

levels. These plans contain a wealth of area-specific information on grouse populations and habitat management, and 

represent years of cooperative planning and management by a diverse group of local stakeholders with vested interests in 

healthy sage grouse communities. The Colorado local working group plans and the Colorado Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Plan (CCP) are posted for download on the greater sage-grouse webpage on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife website: 

(http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/RecoveryConservationPlans/Pages/RecoveryConservationPlans.aspx). Each 

population faces unique threats and requires particular management options that can only specifically be identified by the 

local working groups, including issues and threats specific to the local populations that may not be identified in the NTT 

report or be considered important at the rangewide level. A list of ranked issues (threats) to the Middle Park sage-grouse 

population as identified by the MPSGWG in 2009 is provided in Appendix I. The ranking of these threats differ from those 

provided by the Colorado Statewide Committee (not attached) and the FWS list as provided in Appendix L-1 in the CCP. 

The impacts of these identified threats should be analyzed both individually and cumulatively for each population, specifically 

Appendix I, Tier 1. For example, housing development is a high priority threat for the Middle Park population but probably 

is not identified as a threat for other populations in Colorado. The threats should be analyzed cumulatively because in one 

area you may have recreational activities, energy development leases and a utility right of way. These impacts individually may 

pose a far greater threat than when all activities are combined and analyzed for an area.

CO Both emc0063RM

1544. The EIS should consider both individually and cumulatively impacts from road development and infrastructure associated 

with housing development, recreation and energy development. With increased housing development, energy development 

and recreational activities comes increased road development, wildlife disturbances, habitat degradation, habitat 

fragmentation and infrastructure (including powerlines and fences). The MPSG Plan supports restricting motorized travel to 

designated roads and to minimize new road development as stated in the NTT report. In addition, seasonal wildlife closures 

are supported by the MPSG Plan as a management tool if a problem is identified at a local area. MPSGWG supports fence 

marking in high risk areas that are identified by local field staff or a property owner (in close proximity to leks or along ridge 

tops where roosting occurs) but does not support marking of all fences on public lands within sage-grouse range. The 

MPSGWG supports exceptions to right-of-ways (ROWs) listed in the NTT report in the Rights of Way Section. However, 

any effective mitigation should be done in proximity to the disturbance and within the impacted population. At a minimum, 

buffers around leks should be established and followed when designing and constructing infrastructure ROWs (see Appendix 

II). ROWs should be clustered or limit new development to existing ROWs. MPSGWG supports the ranching lifestyle and 

grazing on BLM allotments. Due to the high mountain basin characteristics of Middle Park the majority of the rangeland 

supports a diverse forb/grass community under a sagebrush canopy. Typically livestock graze in the spring on lower private 

lands and are moved to higher elevation public lands as the summer progresses. The sagebrush community across Middle 

Park is geologically fragmented causing a varying degree of sagebrush quality for sage-grouse due to slope, aspect and 

topography. This landscape feature fragments sagebrush systems and puts a higher importance on the gentler sloped lands 

CO Both emc0063RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-321

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

for use by sage-grouse. The MPSGWG supports rehabilitation of disturbed areas and reestablishment of native sagebrush 

communities utilizing native grasses and forbs species that are beneficial to sage-grouse habitat and structure where 

introduced perennial grasses are not an integral part of livestock management as stated in the NTT report.

1545. I feel that a one size fits all approach will do more harm than good. I think that the range managers and the private land 

owners will need a plan that will benefit the Sage Grouse and still allow grazing. Aggressively changing in grazing on BLM 

Property could actually do more harm than good. By changing the grazing rules, ranchers would have to change grazing 

practices on private property that could negatively impact Sage Grouse summer habitat.

CO Both emc0077RM

1546. I would also request that the BLM analyze the impacts which over regulation might have on the cooperative and voluntary 

efforts to conserve sage grouse. Regulating all uses on BLM so they benefit sage grouse over other uses may have an 

increased negative effect on sage grouse because people will no longer voluntarily engage in proactive practices for the 

benefit of the sage grouse.

CO Both emc0077RM

1547. There is an urgent need for BLM to develop and implement substantive conservation measures between now and 2015, 

when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will again consider whether the greater sage-grouse needs the protection of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). At the national level, through the establishment of the National Sage-Grouse Planning 

Strategy, the Bureau of Land Management has committed to a new paradigm in managing the sagebrush landscape. If BLM 

succeeds in its regional goal of improving management of the sagebrush landscapes across the West, this has the potential to 

not only conserve the greater sage-grouse and ensure that the species does not need to be protected under the Endangered 

Species Act, but also effectively conserve sagebrush natural areas, big game herds and 350 other species that rely on 

sagebrush landscapes, all while benefiting western economies and communities.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1548. However, the National Planning Strategy will fail to achieve its ultimate goals if the BLM’s individual state offices and field 

offices do not fully embrace the National Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Each state office and field office must do its part if 

the National Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is to succeed. Though Colorado BLM has worked to include sage-grouse 

conservation measures in its Resource Management Plans in recent years, these measures are not adequate to conserve 

sage-grouse, prevent the need for the sage-grouse to be protected under the Endangered Species Act, or effectively 

conserve sagebrush natural areas. It is critical that Colorado BLM fully commit to BLM’s new national paradigm in managing 

the sagebrush landscape. This process offers a unique opportunity to make the National Planning Strategy successful, and 

conserve Colorado’s greater sage-grouse and sagebrush natural areas. It would be very unfortunate if BLM’s National 

Planning Strategy fails to achieve its objectives due to BLM State and Field office level resistance to implementation of 

meaningful changes in management of sagebrush landscapes.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1549. Recommendations: We implore Colorado BLM actively take part in this national effort and make meaningful changes in its 

management of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush landscapes through this process in all five Resource Areas that are 

responsible for managing greater sage-grouse habitat in Colorado.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1550. 2. Goals and objectives for managing Colorado’s six populations of sage-grouse. Colorado BLM should plan for sage-grouse 

recovery. The goal of the planning process should be to maintain AND increase current sage-grouse populations and 

distribution in Colorado by conserving, enhancing and restoring the sagebrush ecosystem. Populations must be restored to 

levels that can survive local extirpation events. To achieve these goals, the BLM and Forest Service must develop 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-322 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

management prescriptions that are supported by the best available science. The December 2011 Sage-Grouse National

Technical Team’s Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures2 (hereafter referred to as NTT Report) 

constitute the findings of an expert team of professionals, including many of BLM’s own scientists, regarding the management 

prescriptions that should be applied in order to ensure that this planning process ultimately results in regulatory mechanisms 

that maintain and increase greater sage-grouse populations. BLM Colorado should incorporate the goals and objectives 

outlined in the NTT report.

1551. BLM Colorado should strive to implement conservation measures that will maintain AND enhance each of the six greater 

sage-grouse populations in Colorado (Northwest Colorado, Parachute Piceance/Roan, Meeker/White River, Northern 

Eagle/Southern Routt, Middle Park and North Park). It is necessary for BLM to strive to maintain AND enhance each of these 

populations in order to achieve the goals of the National Planning Process.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1552. Recommendations: It is critical to ensure that the Middle Park, Eagle, South Routt, Meeker/White River, and Parachute 

Piceance/Roan populations be effectively conserved. This will require implementation of adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve these populations in the Little Snake, White River, Colorado River Valley, Kremmling and Grand Junction Field 

Offices. The goals and objectives of the plan amendment process for each of these plans amendments must be to maintain 

AND enhance each of these populations. This goal should be achieved through implementing the recommendations of the 

National Technical Team Report to the fullest extent possible, and specifically addressing all of the threats identified by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in their 2010 listing decision.13

CO BLM emc0070RM

1553. 3. There is significant new information that must be considered as part of this process. In order to satisfy the "hard look" 

requirement, the BLM must supplement its existing environmental analyses when new circumstances "raise[] significant new 

information relevant to environmental concerns . . . ." Portland Audubon Soc’y v. Babbitt, 998 F.2d 705, 708 (9th Cir. 2000).

Agencies are required to "prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impacts statements if . . . There are 

significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its 

impacts." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9©(1)(ii) (2009). The Supreme Court has held that a supplemental EIS must be prepared if "new 

information is sufficient to show that the remaining action will ‘affec[t] the quality of the human environment’ in a significant 

manner or to a significant extent not already considered . . . ." Marsh v. Or. Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 390, 374 (1989); 

see 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)©

CO BLM emc0070RM

1554. 3. There is significant new information that must be considered as part of this process. a. National Technical Team Report

The December 2011 Sage-Grouse National Technical Team’s Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures outlines significant new information and circumstances that must be considered through this planning process.14 

This report reviews the most recent research on greater sage-grouse and outlines the findings and recommendations of an 

expert team, including many of BLM’s own scientists, regarding the management measures that should be applied to ensure 

that this planning process ultimately results in adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve greater sage-grouse. Neither 

this report, nor the recent science that are summarized in the report, were considered in any of the draft or final Resource 

Management Plans in Colorado. All of the information and recommendations outlined in this report must be considered 

carefully through this planning process.

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-323

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1555. 3. There is significant new information that must be considered as part of this process. B. FWS Finding The March 2010 

FWS listing decision for the greater sage-grouse also outlines significant new information and circumstances that must be 

considered through this planning process. The FWS finding stated that listing was "warranted but precluded" due to higher 

listing priorities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This decision confirms long-standing concerns about this iconic 

western species. Based on current estimates, greater sage-grouse populations in North America have declined as much as 

93% from presumed historic levels and have been extirpated from approximately 44% of their former range.15 Sage-grouse 

are thought to have declined at an overall rate of 2 percent per year from 1965 to 200316, likely as a result of habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation. The 2010 "warranted" finding and supporting analysis cited a host of scientific data and 

literature, representing some of the most recent scientific information on current populations, habitat trends, and threats. 

These include the 2004 WAFWA Conservation Assessment, and the suite of articles published as an extensive monograph 

in the peer-reviewed journal Studies in Avian Biology.17 To preclude listing under the ESA, the FWS must determine that 

threats to the species are effectively addressed by science-based conservation measures and that comprehensive regulatory 

mechanisms are in place to ensure that those actions occur. The FWS has identified the principal regulatory mechanism for 

the BLM as conservation measures in Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The FWS findings identified the top five threats 

in the eastern range as: oil and gas development, infrastructure, invasive species, wildfire, and livestock grazing/agricultural 

conversion. In addition renewable energy development is on the rise throughout the species’ range; including proposals for 

associated transmission and rights-of-way (ROW) infrastructure.18

CO BLM emc0070RM

1556. 3. There is significant new information that must be considered as part of this process. c. CPW maps of preliminary priority 

and preliminary general habitat. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (in cooperation with BLM) recently delineated preliminary 

priority and general habitat.19 These maps have been updated based on recent science, from previous CPW maps of greater 

sage-grouse core areas and seasonal habitat. CPW’s previous maps were used as a basis for delineation of: 1) high and

medium priority habitat in the Little Snake RMP, 2) habitat that would be managed for greater sage-grouse in the draft 

Kremmling and Colorado River Valley RMPs, and 3) in the development of not-yet-published alternatives for the White 

River Oil and Gas Amendment, and the Grand Junction RMP. CPW’s preliminary priority and general habitat maps differ 

from previous maps because of significant new information on the location of seasonal habitats used by greater sage-grouse.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1557. Recommendations: None of the draft or final Colorado Resource Management Plans have taken a "hard look" at significant 

new information included in the: 1) National Technical Team Report, 2) March 2010 FWS listing decision for the greater 

sage-grouse, or 3) Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s maps of preliminary priority and general habitat and the research used to 

delineate this habitat. In order to adequately consider this significant new information, BLM must amend the five Colorado 

RMPs within greater sage-grouse habitat in one comprehensive, sage-grouse specific EIS (See section 4 of these comments 

for further discussion).

CO BLM emc0070RM

1558. 4. The BLM should amend five RMPs to conserve greater sage-grouse in one comprehensive EIS. We recommend that the 

BLM amend all five Colorado RMPs within the range of the greater sage-grouse, via one comprehensive greater sage-grouse 

specific EIS rather than attempting to incorporate adequate regulatory mechanisms into the five Resource Management Plans 

through ongoing planning processes. We recommend this approach for the reasons outlined below. IM 2012-04420 

provides direction to BLM for considering conservation measures recommended by the National Technical Team (NTT) 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-324 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Report.21 The IM directs BLM to appropriately consider and analyze the conservation measures developed by the NTT, 

through the land-use planning process, in all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied greater sage-grouse habitat.22 

Thus, in each Colorado RMP, the BLM is required to consider an alternative that includes the conservation measures 

outlined by the NTT (See further discussion in section 6 of these comments).

1559. Four of the five Colorado RMPs that contain occupied greater sage-grouse habitat are currently undergoing revision 

(Kremmling, Colorado River Valley, White River oil and gas amendment, and Grand Junction). The National Technical 

Team’s recommended conservation measures are not within the range of alternatives in the Draft Kremmling and Colorado 

River Valley RMPs. The Grand Junction draft Resource Management Plan, and the White River draft resource management 

plan amendment have not yet been completed and published. However, in both cases, the agency is near completion of draft 

alternatives, and could not incorporate the National Technical Team’s recommendations as an alternative, without a 

significant delay in the planning process, unless the alternative was incorporated only as a "straw man" conservation 

alternative (See further discussion in section 6 below), which is unacceptable. Developing a greater sage-grouse RMP 

Amendment/EIS that amends all five of the relevant Colorado RMPs to incorporate adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve greater sage-grouse, will allow for consideration of an adequate range of alternatives. (See further discussion in 

section 6 below).

CO BLM emc0070RM

1560. In addition, there is significant new information that must be considered in amending each of these plans to conserve greater

sage-grouse, which was not available to either the agency or the public during any of the ongoing planning processes to-date. 

This information includes the National Technical Team’s Report, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service March 2010 listing 

decision, and release of updated maps of greater sage-grouse habitat in Colorado (See further discussion in section 3c of 

these comments). It will be difficult for the agency to effectively incorporate this significant new information into any of the 

ongoing planning processes at this late stage in the four ongoing planning processes. Developing a greater sage-grouse RMP 

Amendment/EIS that amends all five of the relevant Colorado RMPs to incorporate adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve greater sage-grouse will allow the agency to take a single, effective ‘hard look’ at significant new information, and 

how best to incorporate this information into the amendment in ways that will best conserve the species across its range in 

Colorado.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1561. Finally, it is important for Colorado BLM to assess the cumulative impacts of its management on greater sage-grouse across 

the state, to ensure that management of greater sage-grouse habitat is consistent across Field Office boundaries, and to 

ensure that its Resource Management Plans collectively implement adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve greater 

sage-grouse in Colorado. Developing a greater sage-grouse RMP Amendment/EIS that amends all five of the relevant 

Colorado RMPs to incorporate adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve greater sage-grouse, is the most effective and 

straightforward way to achieve all of the above goals.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1562. Recommendations: BLM should amend all five Colorado RMPs within the range of the greater sage-grouse, via one 

comprehensive greater sage-grouse specific EIS rather than attempting to incorporate adequate regulatory mechanisms into 

the five Resource Management Plans through ongoing planning processes.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1563. 5. Priority and general habitat for the purposes of this planning process should include all BLM managed lands delineated as 

preliminary priority and general habitat by CPW. a. Priority and general habitat should be delineated based on biology. 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-325

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Greater sage-grouse preliminary priority and general habitat in Colorado, as defined by BLM in its National Planning Strategy, 

has recently been delineated on maps by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. These maps are based on the best available science, 

and incorporate the most recent research available on greater sage-grouse habitat in Colorado. Priority habitat for the 

purposes of this planning process, in a given Field Office, should include all of the area managed by the Field Office delineated 

as preliminary priority habitat by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Similarly, general habitat for the purposes of this planning 

process, in a given Field Office, should include all of the area managed by the Field Office delineated as preliminary general 

habitat by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

1564. Colorado BLM and/or individual BLM Field Offices should not remove areas from priority and general habitat in the absence 

of data suggesting that these areas do not meet the biological definition of priority or general habitat as outlined by the BLM 

National Planning Strategy and Colorado Parks and Wildlife.23 For example, an area that meets the definition of priority 

habitat from a biological standpoint should not be removed because of the existence of valid existing rights or development 

that does not absolutely preclude any current or future use of the habitat by greater sage-grouse. If the BLM chooses to 

delineate priority or general habitat in a given field office in a manner that excludes areas identified as priority or general 

habitat by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the BLM must disclose the rationale for doing so to the public. Again, this should not 

be contemplated without a biological basis, and where there is disagreement between BLM and Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

on the biological basis for including/excluding areas from priority or general habitat, BLM must explain why it disagrees with 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife and provide any relevant research/evidence to the public. If there are legal or other conflicts 

with managing priority or general habitat as delineated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife in accordance with the National 

Technical Team’s recommendations, the BLM should address these through considering adjustments to management 

proposed for specific areas as part of the planning process, not by adjusting the maps of priority and general habitat.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1565. Recommendations: Priority habitat for the purposes of this planning process, in a given Field Office, should include all of the 

area managed by the Field Office delineated as preliminary priority habitat by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Similarly, general 

habitat for the purposes of this planning process, in a given Field Office, should include all of the area managed by the Field 

Office delineated as preliminary general habitat by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1566. 6. The BLM must analyze an adequate range of alternatives. a. Legal requirements The alternatives section is "the heart of 

the environmental impact statement" and an agency violates NEPA by failing to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

all reasonable alternatives" to the proposed action (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14).24 Accordingly, the BLM must ensure that an 

adequate range of alternatives is presented in the DEIS. The consideration of a range of environmentally protective 

alternatives is consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act requirement that the agencies "minimize adverse 

impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific, cultural, and other resources and values (including fish and wildlife habitat) 

of the public lands involved" (43 U.S.C. §1732(d)(2)(a)). The BLM must consider alternatives reflecting the full suite of 

appropriate management prescriptions that weigh the relative values of resources while contributing towards the greatest 

conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. The multiple conservation alternatives should incorporate a full 

range of policies targeting specific habitat types and a broad spectrum of protective measures. The range of alternatives 

should include those outlined below. An agency violates its obligation to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and to 

take NEPA’s hard look at environmental impacts when it only looks at "straw men" for comparison, which the agency has no 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-326 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

intention of accepting and are put forth only to lead to the agency’s already foregone conclusion.25

1567. b. All alternatives except no action must include strong protections for greater sage-grouse. All of the alternatives (other 

than the ‘no action’ alternative) must include strong protections to conserve the greater sage-grouse. At a minimum, all 

action alternatives should include science-based conservation measures that address all of the primary threats to greater 

sage-grouse.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1568. Each alternative should designate areas of contiguous sage-grouse habitat, not currently subject to mineral leases or other 

valid existing rights for permanent protection. These remaining refugia can provide intact, diverse, high quality sagebrush 

habitat, vital to sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species. Colorado BLM should identify contiguous areas of habitat 

that are not subject to valid existing rights in Colorado and set these areas aside from development, in all alternatives 

(Wyoming BLM proposed a similar action in Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-013).26 Colorado BLM could identify a 

minimum size for a contiguous area that should be set-aside from development, such that set-aside areas are large enough to 

be used by greater sage-grouse. This should be done in consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Colorado has relatively small and fragmented populations, and few large contiguous areas that are not 

developed or subject to valid existing rights. In Colorado, it may be necessary to set all areas not subject to valid existing 

rights aside from development, in order to conserve small isolated populations and provide refugia adjacent to areas likely to 

be developed. These identified, contiguous areas of undeveloped land should be considered for designation as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern in all alternatives. (See Section 8 on ACECs for further discussion). The plan amendment 

should ensure that ACECs will be managed appropriately.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1569. In addition, each plan should preserve options to set areas that are currently subject to valid existing rights, but not 

intensively developed, aside from future development. All alternatives should include this provision in areas of contiguous 

priority habitat that have not yet been intensively developed. For example, all alternatives in each plan should specify that, 

when valid existing rights in contiguous priority habitat areas that are not intensely developed, expire (e.g. existing oil and gas 

leases), these areas will be set-aside from future development. This is especially important in areas where a substantial 

proportion of the priority habitat is under valid existing rights.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1570. All alternatives should include strong baseline protections for priority and general habitat, that address each of the threats 

outlined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s finding. These protections must be consistent with the most recent research 

on impacts of various land uses and protective measures on greater sage-grouse.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1571. All alternatives should address the concerns outlined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

comments on the preferred alternatives outlined in previous draft and final RMPs.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1572. All alternatives must protect a sufficient amount of priority and general habitat to meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing 

sage-grouse populations while allowing appropriate resource use.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1573. All alternatives should include adequate science-based prescriptions in general habitat and linkage areas, which should be 

developed based on the report by the National Technical Team27, and in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1574. Recommendations: All action alternatives must include adequate baseline protections, including the following: 1) limit CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-327

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

development to areas which have low conflicts with sage-grouse conservation, 2) full, permanent protections for contiguous, 

undeveloped priority habitat, 3) strong protections for other key habitat if some development might be allowed, 4) designate 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and provide assurances that they will be managed appropriately, 6) preserve 

options to set priority habitat currently under valid existing rights aside from development in the future, 7) address any 

concerns stated by CPW and FWS in their comments on the current or draft preferred alternative in each plan, and 7) 

provide scientifically valid protections for priority and general habitat and linkages. All alternatives should advance 

sage-grouse conservation and establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to prevent the need to list the greater 

sage-grouse under the ESA.

1575. c. Each plan must take a “hard look” at implementation of the conservation measures outlined in the NTT report and 

incorporate these measures in more than one alternative. IM 2012-04428 provides direction to BLM for considering 

conservation measures recommended by the National Technical Team (NTT) Report.29 The IM directs BLM to 

appropriately consider and analyze the conservation measures developed by the NTT, through the land-use planning 

process, in all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied greater sage-grouse habitat30. To achieve the goal of 

maintaining and increasing greater sage-grouse populations, the BLM must develop management measures that are 

supported by the best available science. The NTT recommendations constitute the findings of an expert team of 

professionals, including many of BLM’s own scientists, regarding the management prescriptions that should be applied in 

order to ensure that this planning process ultimately results in regulatory mechanisms that maintain and increase greater 

sage-grouse populations. The IM notes that there may be some adjustments to these conservation measures in order to 

address ecological site variability. In the event of possible inconsistencies between the recommendations and applicable 

statutes and regulations, BLM is to consider the conservation measure(s) to the fullest extent possible as range-wide 

standards, consistent with its legal authority.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1576. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: Apply the NTT 

recommendations to the preliminary priority habitat, general habitat and linkages, as delineated by Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife. Priority habitat areas must be large enough to achieve the goal of maintaining and increasing current sage-grouse 

abundance and distribution.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1577. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: Fully protect priority 

habitat from large scale disturbances (e.g., transmission lines, oil and gas wells, graded roads, etc.) that will affect population 

distribution and abundance at any level.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1578. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: If priority habitat cannot be 

fully protected from energy development due to valid existing rights, minimize impacts by limiting permitted disturbances to 

one per section with no more than 3% surface disturbance. Ensure that small scale disturbances do not cumulatively disturb 

more than 3% of each priority area.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1579. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: Increase the amount of 

protected priority habitat by aggressively pursuing available tools, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary grazing 

permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts.

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-328 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1580. We recognize the challenge inherent in full implementation of the NTT’s recommendations, given social, political and legal 

factors associated with the need to maximize greater sage-grouse conservation efforts while providing for an appropriate 

level of continued energy development and other activities on our public lands. We are committed to working closely with 

the BLM and to achieve this balance. However, given the sage-grouse’s current precarious position, it is critical for BLM to 

be proactive in its protection efforts. We strongly encourage BLM to avoid making proposed modifications to the NTT 

recommendations and to keep any such adjustments within the narrowest possible range. Any proposed deviations from the 

NTT’s recommendations should be clearly outlined by the BLM, and resulting management prescriptions should be 

consistent with the best available science and the goal of maintaining and increasing greater sage-grouse populations. For 

instance, in areas with relatively small surviving sage-grouse populations and high levels of ongoing energy development, fully 

protecting remaining birds and remnant habitat should be the management priority.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1581. In addition, aspects of the recommendations should be considered in all alternatives. The NTT recommendations should not 

be simply considered and rejected as a whole, since they provide a range of uses and management approaches. It is critical 

for BLM Colorado to seriously consider an alternative that incorporates the "full recommendations" of the NTT, and to 

include aspects of the NTT recommendations in all alternatives. BLM must not simply analyze the "full recommendations" 

alternative, along with the current preferred alternative in existing and draft RMPs, and then select the current preferred 

alternative and reject the "full recommendations" alternative as a "straw man".

CO BLM emc0070RM

1582. Recommendations: The EIS should analyze at least one alternative for each RMP that incorporates all of the NTT’s 

recommendations, as required in IM 2012-244. The "full recommendations" alternative should be seriously considered, and 

not simply rejected as a "straw man." The remaining alternatives in the EISs should incorporate portions of the NTT’s 

recommendations.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1583. d. Each plan should consider an alternative that applies the NTT recommendations in a subset of priority habitat. In addition 

to an alternative implementing the NTT’s recommendations across all priority habitat, the agencies should analyze an 

alternative that fully incorporates the recommended conservation measures across a large proportion of priority habitat. 

The subset of priority habitat must be of sufficient size to meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing greater sage-grouse 

populations. Application of these measures in a subset of priority habitat should be combined with the measures 

recommended previously for consideration in all alternatives. An alternative limiting application of the recommendations 

to only a subset of priority habitat should not be selected unless qualified scientists, including FWS and CPW professionals,

agree that the priority habitat so protected will achieve the goal of maintaining and increasing greater sage-grouse 

populations.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1584. Recommendations: The EIS should analyze at least one alternative for each RMP that fully incorporates the NTT’s 

recommendations across a subset of priority habitat.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1585. e. Each plan should analyze a conservation alternative that provides more protection than that afforded by implementation 

of the NTT’s recommendations.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1586. The BLM should consider a ‘conservation alternative’ that: • Includes conservation measures recommended by the NTT 

Report, with improvements, including, but not limited to the following: o Avoid sagebrush reduction/ treatments to 

increase livestock or big game forage in priority habitat and include plans to restore high-quality habitat in areas with invasive 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-329

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

species. O Implement range management practices outlined by the NTT, with addition of further conservation measures, 

including avoiding new range and water developments that negatively impact sage-grouse and applying the 3% disturbance 

cap to certain range developments. O Design fuel treatments to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems (including avoiding 

such treatments where they will harm sagebrush ecosystems) and prioritize fire suppression to conserve the highest quality 

habitat. O Ensure that disturbance or uses that are permitted adjacent to priority habitat don’t negatively impact 

sage-grouse populations in priority habitat,31 thus negating the value of designated priority habitats. Include small or 

isolated populations (such as those along the periphery of the greater sage-grouse’s range) in priority habitat, and protect 

and enhance such populations with science-based prescriptions. • Combines this with designations of a subset of priority 

habitat as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that receive a higher level of protection than that recommended by the 

NTT.

1587. Recommendation: The EIS should analyze an alternative for each RMP that includes protective conservation measures that 

go beyond those in the NTT Report, including, but not limited to ACEC designations and the other improvements described 

above.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1588. Therefore, in order to maximize conservation benefit given other competing values, we recommend protective management 

of preliminary priority habitat delineated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, along with designation of ACECs informed by the 

following additional criteria: Prioritize providing resources to ACEC designation, plan development and plan 

implementation.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1589. 9. Current final and draft CO RMPs do not contain adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve greater sage-grouse. 

Colorado BLM has developed greater sage-grouse conservation measures in the final Little Snake Field Office Resource 

Management Plan, and the preferred alternatives in the draft Colorado River Valley and Kremmling Resource Management 

Plans. We appreciate the fact that Colorado BLM took the initiative to begin improving its greater sage-grouse conservation 

measures prior to the commencement of the National Planning Process. However, the final Little Snake Field Office 

Resource Management Plan, and the preferred alternatives in the draft Colorado River Valley and Kremmling Resource 

Management Plans, do not account for significant new information (see previous discussion in section 3 of these comments), 

and need to be substantially improved in order to achieve the goals of the National Planning process. Though the draft White 

River Oil and Gas Amendment and the draft Grand Junction RMP have not yet been published, they may also need to be 

updated to include significant new information, and improved to meet the goals of the National Planning Process.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1590. a. Little Snake Field Office Resource Management Plan. The final LSFO RMP includes protections for greater sage-grouse 

that are an improvement over those outlined in any other final RMP to-date in Colorado. However, these measures are far 

from adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve this important population, as evidenced by concerns expressed by both 

state and federal wildlife agencies, referenced below.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1591. i. The plan does not set aside any high-priority habitat aside from development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)36 have both recommended that high priority habitat in the Little Snake Field Office 

be set-aside from development and managed as protected core areas. FWS comments on the proposed plan state that, "For 

high priority habitats, we recommend avoiding energy development and similar activities, and instead, managing them as 

protected core areas."37 CPW further emphasizes this, stating that, "...establishment of large greater sage-grouse

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-330 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

refuges...may ultimately prove to be the only effective means of conserving greater sage-grouse populations in areas of 

extensive oil and gas development." CPW goes on to recommend that the LSFO preserve options for establishment of 

future refuges by retaining unleased minerals, and avoiding the re-leasing of minerals in high priority habitats.38 The final 

LSFO plan fails to set-aside high priority sage-grouse habitat from development or preserve options to set-aside core areas 

in the future.

1592. iii. The plan does not include measures to protect greater sage-grouse from impacts of activities other than oil and gas 

development. The final RMP does not include any specific measures to protect greater sage-grouse from the impacts of 

non-oil and gas related activities (e.g. transmission lines, wind energy developments, mining, etc.), even in high priority 

sage-grouse habitats. The 0.6 mile lek buffer and surface disturbance restrictions apply only to oil and gas development 

activities. The final RMP includes language stating that BLM may hold non-oil and gas related development to a higher 

standard in high and medium priority habitats. It states that BLM may require avoidance or additional mitigation, and that 

BLM may not approve projects in high and medium priority habitats.59 The FWS comments on the proposed plan suggest 

that the FWS does not consider this type of language to be an adequate regulatory mechanism, as it does not provide a high 

degree of certainty regarding what specific measures are likely to be implemented in the future to protect sage-grouse from 

the likely adverse effects of a variety of potentially harmful activities.60

CO BLM emc0070RM

1593. iv. Provisions for monitoring and adaptive management are insufficient. The proposed plan does not establish an effective 

monitoring and adaptive management process with performance based standards. The plan does not spell out triggers for 

adaptive management, and clearly specify the consequences that will result if triggers are reached. 61 Monitoring and 

adaptive management are not required or adequately funded.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1594. Recommendations: The BLM must amend the Little Snake RMP through this process, and must ensure that amendments 

address the concerns outlined above, as well as taking a “hard look” at the alternatives described in Section 6 of these 

comments and considering the significant new information and circumstances outlined in Section 3 of these comments.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1595. v. Kremmling and Colorado River Valley Draft Resource Management Plans The preferred alternatives in the draft 

Kremmling and Colorado River Valley Draft Resource Management Plans contain improved conservation measures for 

greater sage-grouse. We commend BLM for its proactive effort to incorporate improved conservation measures into these 

plans prior to announcement of the National Planning Process. Please see the Conservation Community’s Public Scoping 

Comments on Rocky Mountain Region Greater Sage-Grouse EISs and Supplemental EISs, submitted by Rocky Mountain 

Wild and others, for a summary of the conservation measures in the KFO RMP that we support. A copy of these Rocky 

Mountain Region Comments is available at: 

http://rockymountainwild.org/_site/wp-content/uploads/EISs-Eastern-Regional-SG-Comments_Consv.Community.pdf 

However, the preferred alternatives in these plans still do not currently contain adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve greater sage-grouse. Please see a summary of our concerns with the preferred alternatives in these plans at: 

http://rockymountainwild.org/_site/wp-content/uploads/CRVFO_KFO_RMPs_GSG_Analysis.docx

CO BLM emc0070RM

1596. Recommendations: The BLM must improve the greater sage-grouse conservation measures in the CRVFO and KFO RMPs 

are improved through this process, and must address the concerns about the current preferred alternatives in these plans, 

as well as taking a “hard look” at the alternatives described in Section 6 of these comments and considering the significant 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-331

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

new information and circumstances outlined in Section 3 of these comments.

1597. 10. Interim Management We are very concerned that CO BLM Field Offices are not operating in accordance with the 

Interim Management laid out in Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2012-043. For example, the BLM’s White River and Little Snake Field Offices recently proposed leasing 

of oil and gas lease parcels in preliminary priority and general greater sage-grouse habitat without going through the process 

laid out in IM 2012-043. Please see our protest of the proposed leasing for details.62 Recommendations: It is critical for 

Colorado BLM to operate in accordance with IM 2012-043 for any action proposed in preliminary priority or general habitat 

delineated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

CO BLM emc0070RM

1598. 11. Additional comments. Please refer to the Conservation Community’s Public Scoping Comments on Rocky Mountain 

Region Greater Sage-Grouse EISs and Supplemental EISs, submitted by Rocky Mountain Wild and others, for additional 

comments. A copy of these Rocky Mountain Region Comments is available at: 

http://rockymountainwild.org/_site/wp-content/uploads/EISs-Eastern-Regional-SG-Comments_Consv.Community.pdf

CO BLM emc0070RM

1599. First, the IM requires the BLM to map "priority preliminary habitat" (PPH) and "general preliminary habitat" (GPH) for 

sage-grouse and manage those habitats according to the procedures outlined in the IM. We believe strongly that until PPH 

and GPH are mapped, the BLM must manage all Greater sage-grouse habitat in Colorado as PPH. This will ensure that 

habitat most critical to recovering the species is protected from ongoing and proposed actions (such as oil and gas leasing) 

that were identified as threats in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's March 2010 finding. This will also further the overarching 

purpose of the IM: to "promote[] sustainable Greater sage-grouse populations and conservation of its habitat while not 

closing any future options before the planning process can be completed ." IM 2012- 043 (emphasis added).

CO BLM rmc0006RM

1600. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) appreciates the opportunity to work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

the United States Forest Service (USFS) as a Cooperating Agency on the Greater Sage-Grouse Programmatic Resource 

Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/EIS).

CO Both emc0072RM

1601. CPW prepared, in collaboration with the BLM, the Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat 

(PGH) maps; the map also depicts "linkages" that show potential movement corridors between populations. Specific 

conservation measures for linkages or connectivity between populations are not discussed in the BLMs Instructional

Memorandum# 2012-043 (IM) or the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team report dated December 21 , 2011. Therefore, 

these linkages do not have management or policy recommendations for protection strategies or actions. CPW recommends 

that the "linkage" depicted habitats be given the at least the same level of protections as the PGH. These maps reflect the 

most current knowledge of habitats and bird distribution and use the best available science. CPW strongly recommends that 

the PPH and PGH maps be described in the PRMP as a designation of habitat boundary and not as "The Habitat Map". CPW 

requests the habitat be depicted as a boundary designation for two reasons: (1) a habitat designation will, over time, allow for 

bird distribution, lek status, and habitat conditions to change across the landscape. For example, as the status and

distribution of leks change over time, dynamic mapping of habitat boundaries will reflect those changes in a timely, relevant 

manner; (2) this will allow BLM to change habitat boundaries through a more timely administrative process rather than a 

lengthy RMP revision or amendment process.

CO Both emc0072RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-332 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1602. BLM and USFS are signatory to the 2008 Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. Threats identified in the 2008 

plan remain valid today and should be included in the PRMP review process.

CO Both emc0072RM

1603. The Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan identifies six populations of greater sage-grouse in Colorado and 

describes the efforts of five local area working groups, as well as strategies developed at the state and local level to minimize 

impacts to grouse based on the requirements of individual populations and local conditions. The local working groups, 

including CPW, BLM and other agencies, have invested an extensive amount of time to develop local conservation plans. The 

plans contain many of the threats and risks that are identified range-wide; however, they have specific strategies developed 

for the grouse population based on local conditions. CPW has benefited from working with local working groups to develop 

conservation plans with local emphasis and to develop strong working relationships with local communities and local

governments. Local conservation plans should be carefully examined for strategies that can be incorporated by BLMIUSFS to 

make the range of alternatives in the PRMP analysis more robust.

CO Both emc0072RM

1604. CPW recommends that BLM!USFS clearly define the specific anthropogenic disturbances to be included in measurement of 

the overall disturbance (e.g. 3% threshold). CPW also recommends that the BLM/USFS conduct and publish a thorough 

baseline current condition disturbance measurement.

CO Both emc0072RM

1605. CPW recommends that categorical exclusions (CX) not be used to facilitate NEPA processes for projects within PPH or 

PGH areas. Proposed projects should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because of the significance of being located in 

greater sagegrouse habitat.

CO Both emc0072RM

1606. Will the BLM!USFS propose (in the PRMP/EIS) to provide exemptions to stipulations in the proposed alternatives? CPW 

recognizes the importance of exemptions, waivers or modifications in limited situations. However, the granting of 

exemptions, waivers or modifications outside of extraordinary situations will raise doubt about the validity of the proposed 

protections proposed in the PRMP/EIS. In general, CPW believes that exemptions, waivers or modifications should be 

avoided; however, when necessary, they should be balanced with appropriate greater sage-grouse mitigation of equal or 

greater value. CPW should be consulted prior to granting exemptions, waivers and modifications within PPH and PGH.

CO Both emc0072RM

1607. CPW believes that BLM and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) should closely coordinate the 

final adopted PRMP outcomes, especially the PPH and GPH maps and habitat designations. Coordination is important so that 

the COGCC oil and gas Rules, as amended by House Bill 1298 and the July 2009 agreement entitled Memorandum of 

Understanding Among Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, and 

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Concerning Oil and Gas Permitting on BLM and NFS Lands in Colorado 

are consistent. Concurrent habitat designations can provide a fluid avenue for BLM and COGCC to commit to consistent 

protective measures within these habitat designations that would result in greater certainty for oil and gas operators 

working with federal and state regulatory agencies and enhanced conservation of greater sage-grouse.

CO BLM emc0072RM

1608. CPW recognizes that the Routt National Forest has relatively little total acreage within mapped PPH and PGH compared to 

the BLM Field Offices. However, CPW recommends that the USFS provide protection for sage-grouse habitat on the Routt

National Forest. CPW requests that the USFS address sage-grouse habitat needs for projects planned in PPH and PGH. The 

largest portion of sage-grouse habitat on the Routt National Forest is mapped as PGH in California Park and Slater Park. 

Although the areas are mapped as PGH, CPW believes that Slater Park and California Park provide an important movement 

CO USFS emc0072RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-333

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

corridor from the large sage-grouse populations in the Little Snake Valley to the smaller population areas in the Elkhead 

Valley. CPW recommends maintaining these habitats for movement corridors and potential breeding and brood rearing 

habitat. CPW has worked with the USFS on previous efforts to restore sagebrush and understory communities in California 

Park to benefit both greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. CPW recommends that the USFS continue 

these restoration efforts.

1609. Even though the Routt National Forest has relatively little total acreage within mapped PPH and PGH compared to the BLM 

Field Offices CPW welcomes their participation. Why aren't other National Forests in Colorado with greater sage-grouse 

populations and habitats participating in Plan revisions, such as the White River National Forest? CPW encourages all 

appropriate land management agencies to participate so that the most defensible results can be produced.

CO USFS emc0072RM

1610. Due to the biases and inadequacies described on page one and two of these comments, Moffat County requests the BLM not 

use the Technical Team Report, in its current form, as an alternative to be considered in the EIS. However, knowing that that 

BLM has indicated they will use the Technical Team Report as an alternative, Moffat County requests BLM utilize a full range 

of alternatives to represent the range of possible management actions in its EIS. We recognize that the Technical Team 

Report, although highly inadequate, does represent, one extreme sideboard. We specifically request that the other 

sideboard opposite the Technical Team Report analyze a scenario where Sage-grouse are not given special management 

considerations and one scenario where BLM utilizes the existing RMP stipulations, including the 5% disturbance proposal, to 

manage the resource. If BLM merely considers the RMP, or the 'existing condition' as the opposite sideboard to the

Technical Team Report, it does the alternative process injustice. Considering the Technical Team Report on one extreme, 

and merely the existing condition as the other, then the scale is weighted unjustly toward pedestaling the grouse above other 

uses. The Little Snake RMP and the NW Colorado Sage-grouse Management Plan both prioritize grouse management, while 

still allowing other uses such as grazing, recreation, and energy development to simultaneously occur. Grouse in Moffat 

County have sustained themselves with positive numbers overall with this philosophy of management and Moffat County is 

not supportive of shifting this balance where our local economy suffers.

CO BLM emc0076RM

1611. Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Moffat County appreciates BLM extending the invitation for Cooperating Agency 

Status. One issue that arose with the publishing the Technical Team Report, is the inconsistency of that report with the 

Moffat County Master Plan, which contains the Moffat County Land Use Plan, the NW Colorado Greater Sage-grouse 

Conservation Plan, and the Little Snake Field Office Resource Management Plan. The above mentioned documents were all 

drafted with a record setting public input process, involving a wide range of stakeholders and scientific evidence. These 

documents are in direct conflict with the Technical Team Report in areas such as grazing, wildfire, mineral and non mineral 

leases, and wildlife management. We hope that there is a middle (not sideboard) alternative in the EIS that is consistent with 

the above mentioned documents regarding grouse management. In general these documents have been designed with a 'live 

and let live' philosophy that carefully allows other uses of the rangelands that co-exist with Sage-grouse. The Technical Team 

Report diminishes these other uses, by placing grouse management above these other uses. Federal Land Management Policy 

Act 43 USC 1712©(9) provides the mechanism for BLM to coordinate closely with the local governments in the 

development of alternatives and the EIS. Moffat County requests BLM honor the consistency requirements with existing 

local planning documents and we look forward to this participation. There is a general concern that BLM reports it will 

CO BLM emc0076RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-334 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

compile information from the five RMP's affected by the EIS. The Little Snake BLM Field Office has a very current RMP that

carefully considered regulation of activity in Sage-grouse areas. Considering vegetation communities and general habitat vary 

widely throughout the five field offices, Moffat County encourages BLM to evaluate the grouse protection measures in each 

RMP separately, realizing that mechanisms in the Little Snake RMP likely won't work in other field offices. While we 

acknowledge the need to evaluate the net effect of the five different RMP's, we urge BLM to also acknowledge area-specific 

grouse management strategies identified in the Little Snake RMP.

1612. In the Draft RMP for the Kremmling (CO) Field Office31, Alternative C would commit the BLM to: ...proactively identify, 

protect, and improve wildlife habitat, including treatments for the benefit of sagebrush-dependent species, especially in areas 

identified as historical habitats. Alternative C would include establishing reference areas that would be used as control 

groups for evaluating management activities in sagebrush habitat. In sage-grouse core areas within the Planning Area, 

BLM-managed public lands would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Draft RMP32 at 2-24. Alternative B (preferred 

alternative) would prohibit surface occupancy or use in core habitat. Draft RMP at 2-55 – 2-56. Alternative C would prohibit 

oil and gas leasing in core sage-grouse habitat. Draft RMP at 2-55. Alternative C would also limit surface disturbance in core 

habitat to one percent at any one time, while Alternative B would limit surface disturbance to three percent at any one time. 

Draft RMP at 2-74.

CO Both emc0089RM

1613. Recommendations: The Lander (WY) and Kremmling (CO) Field Offices’ Draft RMPs contain important conservation 

measures that should be applied, where appropriate, to other land use plans, specifically, Alternatives B and D in Wyoming 

and Alternatives B and C in Colorado. Many of these management prescriptions recognize the relative value of other

resources while contributing to the conservation of greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.

CO Both emc0089RM

1614. CMA recognizes the need to develop a plan that will be sufficient to conserve the species so that future listing as threatened 

or endangered is unnecessary. We support the many voluntary efforts already underway through the various initiatives, 

conservation plans. candidate conservation plans with assurances, and local working groups that have converged in this state 

to protect and conserve the sage grouse population. lt is important that BLM recognize and build upon themany planning 

efforts that have already taken place including the Moffat County Land Use Plan. the NW Colorado Greater Sage Grouse 

Conservation Plan, and the Little Snake Field Office Resource Management Plan. It is our understanding that efforts through 

the North Park Sage Grouse Working Group have achieved some success. A wide range of public input was received in the 

drafting of these plans with broad stakeholder participation and submission of scientific evidence. The recommendations in 

these plans directly conlict with the National Technical Team Report in areas such as grazing. wildfire, mineral and nonmineral leases, and wildlife management. Whereas the locally developed plans emphasis co-existence between sage grouse

conservation and other necessary uses of the land, the Technical Team report emphasizes sage grouse protection above all 

in an exclusionary approach. Because of the unique situation which occurs in NW Colorado where some entire counties 

may be affected, we urge the BLM to provide alternatives which emphasize multiple use of the lands with compensatory 

mitigation.

CO Both emc0143RM

1615. Alternatives presented in an EIS should balance the need for sage-grouse protection with due regard for multiple use 

mandates contained in other federal law including the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-31; the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-I4; and the national Forest Management 

CO Both emc0143RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-335

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq. For lands managed by the BLM. the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

provides in Section 302 that "[t]he Secretary' shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield." 42 U.S.C. § 1732(a). Furthermore, FLPMA requires management ofthe public lands ""in a manner which recognizes the 

Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals.'' 43 U .S.C. § 170 I (11 )-(12). In 2006, the importance of mining on public 

lands was acknowledged and BLM endorsed multiple use for land use management in its 2006 Energy and Non-energy 

Mineral Policy, which states that, with few exceptions. mineral exploration and development can occur concurrently or

sequentially with other resource uses and further indicates that the least restrictive stipulations that effectively accomplish 

the resource objectives or uses will be used. See BLM 2006 policy at p. 2. CMA believes that the numerous directives in 

federal land management statutes and agency policy continue to be honored in any alternatives crafted to protect the greater 

sage-grouse.

1616. CMA is concerned that the two Instructional Memoranda, if taken to their furthest extent, could effectively result in a 

moratorium on new activities conducted on public lands which have been identified as sage grouse habitat. We urge the BLM 

to defer action until a full and transparent public process has been completed to address sage grouse conservation. Existing 

measures, we believe. are more than adequate to address interim concerns until a specific plan is adopted through a public 

process.

CO Both emc0143RM

1617. IV. ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL TEAM, AND CONSIDER ADDITIONAL 

PROTECTION. The undersigned believe that the recommendations of NTT, 2011, constitute the best available science and 

provide the best set of measures for ensuring the conservation and recovery of GSG. Though outcomes are not guaranteed, 

we believe that implementing the strong protective measures embodied in the NTT Report gives GSG the greatest chance 

of survival and recovery. Therefore, at least one alternative in the NEPA analysis must propose to apply the NTT 

recommendations.

CO USFS emc0175RM

1618. (One of the most important NTT recommendations for Routt NF) "Do not use Categorical Exclusions (CXs) including 

under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 390 in priority sage‐grouse habitats due to resource conflicts." Ibid.

CO USFS emc0175RM

1619. 1. Apply NTT recommendations to some general GSG habitat. The NTT recommendations apply primarily to priority 

habitat. Thus the Routt National Forest should adopt these recommendations for any priority habitat on the Forest At least 

one alternative in the NEPA document should also propose to apply them to some or all general habitat in areas adjacent to 

or near priority habitat, whether that priority habitat is on national forest or land in other ownership. Also propose to apply 

it to areas of historic habitat that form sufficiently sized blocks and are, or could become, reasonably well connected to other 

GSG habitat.

CO USFS emc0175RM

1620. 4. Require strong mitigation where needed. If the three percent surface disturbance limitation is exceeded, e. g., due to 

exercise of valid existing rights for gas leases, require mitigation, preferably for the same population and the same type(s) and 

quality of GSG habitat that are affected. Actions that may require mitigation should be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible. The principles described in Doherty et al., 2010 3 should be used in planning mitigation. BLM and FS should consider 

using the approach outlined in this paper to develop methods to forecast population losses that will result from unavoidable 

development of valid existing rights, and to ensure that offsite mitigation permanently reduces similar risks to other 

sage-grouse populations of equal size. The analyses and recommendations in this paper should be carefully considered when 

CO USFS emc0175RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-336 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

designing conservation strategies that include mitigation.

1621. 2. Assign occupied GSG habitat to existing, protective Forest Plan management areas. a. Designate research natural areas for 

some GSG habitat. Establishing one or more research natural areas (RNAs) in GSG habitat would help conservation of the 

species by 1) providing protective measures, 2) establishing one or more areas where research could be conducted on sage 

grouse use of habitat and/or restoration or enhancement of historic or potential habitat. For occupied GSG habitat that 

provides at least some of the species’ needs in all seasons, RNA designation would be appropriate because such area(s) could 

"serve as reference areas for evaluating the range of natural variability and the impacts of management in similar environment 

(sic)". Forest Plan at 2-22, Management Area 2.2. One or more RNAs would also help "protect and maintain representative 

and key elements of biological diversity.." and "serve as study areas for ecosystems and ecological processes". Ibid. Even 

some unoccupied habitat could be designated as an RNA so that experimental restoration on a small scale could be tested 

and observed. RNA designation would protect sage grouse because oil and gas leasing and recreational motorized use are 

not allowed in these areas. Plan at 2-23, 2-24. However, control of non-native plants is encouraged (id. at 2-23), thus exotic 

species like cheatgrass, which is a pervasive plague on GSG range throughout the west, could be treated. RNA designation 

would provide a golden opportunity to conduct scientific research that should help conserve GSG.

CO USFS emc0175RM

1622. b. Designate some or all occupied sage grouse habitat as special interest areas. Management Area 2.1, Special Interest Areas 

(SIAs) could also be used to protect GSG habitat. The Forest Plan states that: SIAs can be designated to protect and manage 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and other elements of biological diversity.. Id. at 2-19. Other components of 

this management prescription would allow management to protect GSG: Vegetation manipulation may be used to maintain 

or restore natural conditions [and] to protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species... Ibid. Use only those 

vegetation management practices necessary to meet specific resource objectives of maintaining or restoring the values for 

which the SIA was identified. ... Allow recreational use emphasizing interpretation and education when it does not threaten 

the values for which the area was identified. Id. at 2-21. The following provision of management prescription 2.1 would 

need to be adjusted for any SIA designated to protect GSG: Allow oil and gas leasing with controlled surface-use stipulation, 

unless further restricted by other conditions in the SIA. Id. at 2-20. There is strong evidence from published research that 

GSG avoid infrastructure associated with energy development. See NTT at 19-20. Thus all sage grouse habitat must be 

off-limits to leasing.

CO USFS emc0175RM

1623. 3. Consider composing and applying a new management area prescription that will focus on protecting and restoring, as 

appropriate, occupied, historic and potential GSG habitat. The two areas identified as "draft core areas" on the Routt NF on 

the "Core Area Overview" map that accompanies the SRC are both assigned to management area 5.41, deer and elk winter 

range. This prescription would provide some protection for GSG, but only in the winter. All types of GSH habitat, not just 

winter range, will need to be protected to ensure conservation and recovery of the species. Maintaining winter range for big 

game may involve retaining some tree stands for hiding and thermal cover. See Plan at 2-47, Desired Condition for 

management area 5.41. Obviously, this is inappropriate for GSG habitat, because this species will stay out of a considerable 

area around any trees in order to avoid predators. Even if trees are not present now, they could invade in the future, leading 

to a degradation of GSH habitat, even if they might be desirable for big game cover. Indeed, encroachment of conifers (mainly 

pinon-juniper) is a factor in degradation of GSG habitat. 75 Fed Red at 13937-13939 The National Technical Team 

CO USFS emc0175RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-337

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

recommends removing standing and encroaching trees within 100 meters of occupied sage-grouse habitat, to reduce

availability of perch sites for avian predators. See NTT at 71, point 12 The limitation on oil-gas leasing in management 

prescription 5.41 is insufficient, as it would allow leasing with timing stipulations “unless further restricted by other 

conditions”. Plan at 2- 48. This would allow activities and structures within GSG habitat, rendering that habitat useless to the 

species. Thus the 5.41 prescription is not at all adequate or appropriate for occupied GSG areas. It must be changed. To 

emphasize the rather urgent need to protect GSG, a new management prescription could be composed and applied, at a 

minimum, to occupied habitat and some historic habitat. To prevent activities on adjacent areas, such as motorized 

recreation and oil-gas leasing and operations, it should also be applied to areas adjacent to habitat, including areas of national 

forest land that are adjacent to GSG habitat in other land ownerships. See discussion in section III above on the need for 

protecting areas adjacent to GSG habitat. Management prescriptions must not be the only mechanism to protect GSG 

habitat on the Routt, unless all occupied, historic, and potential habitat is assigned to a sufficiently protective prescription. 

More likely would be a scenario where any management prescriptions used to conserve GSG would cover less than all the 

habitat the species might use in the future. That is why it is important to have strong forest-wide standards for protection of 

GSG.

1624. CONCLUSION. The Forest Service must do its part in ensuring the conservation of GSG. Strong protective measures must 

be adopted into the management plan, including, but not necessarily limited to, forest-wide standards. The NTT 

recommendations should be adopted as forest plan standards.

CO USFS emc0175RM

1625. The Routt amendment must apply to all existing and potential GSG habitat. Land that is not currently habitat for GSG but is 

adjacent to such habitat, even that on other land ownerships, must be protected to ensure that activities on national forest 

land do not lead to a further decline of GSG or thwart its recovery to full viable populations. A strong monitoring program 

is critical to the success of management in conserving GSG.

CO USFS emc0175RM

1626. Second, on a related note, the BLM must work proactively with Colorado Parks & Wildlife to finalize the PPH and GPH maps 

as soon as possible. Only once those maps are finalized can the BLM fully implement the IM's policies and procedures. 

Additionally, the BLM must make the final maps and associated GIS data available to the public in a timely fashion and on a 

central website location, as it has done for the Idaho and southwestern Montana sub-region. Please note that because the 

habitat maps have not been finalized for Colorado and several other states in the region, the public is unable to review and 

comment on them during the current scoping periods for the range-wide planning process. As a consequence, we have 

formally asked the Interior Department for additional time to review and comment on the habitat maps once they are 

released to the public.

CO BLM rmc0006RM

1627. Finally, the BLM must follow the policies and procedures of the national IM and not the preexisting state-level IM concerning 

the management of sage-grouse (IM C0-2010-028). While the national IM authorizes states to follow state-level IMs in 

limited circumstances, those circumstances do not exist in Colorado. Consequently, Colorado BLM must at all times comply 

with the national IM.

CO BLM rmc0006RM

1628. Given the limited time frame available to the BLM to analyze and implement Sage-grouse amendment to the identified 

Resource Management Plans and Land and Resource Management Plans, we strongly recommend that the agency tier to 

existing RFDs from the last round of completed planning documents in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. While several of 

CO BLM emc0340GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-338 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Colorado and Montana RMPs have yet to be finalized and implemented, many have already completed preparation of their 

planning RFDs, which should be used as part of the Sage-grouse amendment process. In so doing, BLM will have the benefit 

of local information and expertise rather than attempting to prepare an additional regional RFD.

1629. The Conservation Districts are proponents of good resource management for multiple uses of our public lands. We strongly 

believe that all land use decisions should be made at the local level where the people most affected and hands-on land 

managers are involved daily with the land so they can make the most informed decisions. Therefore, we applaud Colorado 

for developing the Northwest Colorado Sage-Grouse EIS in an effort to gather more local data and information.

CO Both emc0178RM

1630. We respectfully request that BLM consider alternatives in this EIS that use a common sense and local approach. With the 

current threat of listing, it is easy for BLM to overreact and implement regulations and restrictions greater than listing of the 

sage-grouse may implement. Therefore, we caution BLM in implementing more restrictive regulations than would be in place 

should the sage-grouse be listed.

CO Both emc0178RM

1631. It is critical that the BLM not take a top down strategy with a one size fits all philosophy. There has been a huge amount of

time and resources dedicated to understanding and improving Sage-grouse habitat in Northwestern Colorado. Other areas 

have their own unique challenges, but the cooperative efforts that have been on-going for the past 10 years in Colorado have 

done more research and strategizing for the benefit of the sage grouse than this EIS will provide. It is a waste of taxpayer 

funds to try to duplicate those efforts and the timeline of this EIS will not allow the necessary research. Therefore, it is 

absolutely critical that the BLM utilize these groups’ data and information as they conduct the EIS and select an alternative.

CO Both emc0178RM

1632. Documents that are essential to include in the EIS are: Parachute-Piceance-Roan Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 

(April 29, 2008), Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (April 2008), and the Little Snake Field Office 

RMP. These local planning efforts should be strongly considered as one of the alternatives in this EIS.

CO Both emc0178RM

1633. These localized conservation plans have had a great deal of coordination and cooperation by local, state, and federal agencies 

as well as all other stakeholders. Therefore, the Districts respectfully request that at least one of the EIS alternatives include 

these plans.

CO Both emc0178RM

1634. While we understand the Technical Team Report (TTR) will be one of the alternatives considered in this EIS, the Districts 

strongly encourage a critical look at the biases and inadequacies of the TTR report. Specific considerations include but are 

not limited to: a. No acknowledgement of the grouse predation issues that are significantly impacting the grouse populations.

b. Lack of information on the symbiotic relationships and dependence between livestock grazing and Sage-grouse. The 

report also overlooks the grouse benefits of range improvements developed by the permittees. c. Inadequate credit given to 

local plans developed that are positively affecting grouse habitat. d. No acknowledgment of the need for addressing localized 

habitat requirements and circumstances. One size does not fit all. e. Lack of acknowledging the on-the-ground conservation 

practices which are effectively working to improve grouse habitat in Northwestern Colorado. f. Lack of local economic and 

social impacts to each local community and their unique circumstances. g. Lack of positive statements about the effects of fire 

on Sage-grouse habitat while some of the best leks are located on old fire scares.

CO Both emc0178RM

1635. At least one of the alternatives considered in the EIS should include a scenario where Sage-grouse are not given special 

management considerations. For example, when BLM manages for any one species you begin to manage that species or 

others to extinction because of unintended consequences.

CO Both emc0178RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-339

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1636. Preliminary Priority Habitat Maps appear to be very arbitrary. The Districts respectfully request that care is taken to 

ground-truth the priority habitat for the grouse to reduce the unnecessary intrusive footprint created by drawing circles 

four miles around each lek. There may be valuable habitat beyond the four mile radius in one portion of the landscape and 

it may be significantly less in other areas.

CO Both emc0178RM

1637. The White River and Douglas Creek Conservation Districts support the BLM and various area-specific groups in their 

efforts to ensure the continued survival and strengthening of Sage-grouse populations and habitat. We encourage BLM to 

keep in mind that private land owners and managers are your best partners in this endeavor as they manage a significant 

portion of the grouse habitat. The grouse knows no private/public land boundaries and we always encourage strong 

cooperation and coordination with private land managers.

CO Both emc0178RM

1638. The following comments relate to the BLM’s management prescriptions for sage-grouse habitat on the lands it manages in 

northwestern Colorado by the Little Snake Field Office. We strongly urge that, in developing its west-wide strategy for 

protecting and enhancing sage-grouse habitat, the BLM withdraw from the mineral leasing and mining laws, all BLM lands 

harboring priority sage-grouse habitats managed by the BLM within the Little Snake Area. Unfortunately, though the Little 

Snake Field Office adopted a new Resource Management Plan just last year, that plan did not adequately protect sage-grouse 

habitats on BLM lands from inappropriate mining and mineral activities, such as oil and gas leasing, exploration and 

development, and hard rock mining. We share in the USFWS’s concerns that the 5 and 1 percent disturbance factors, 

including providing exceptions to seasonal restrictions, will not be protective enough to ensure the long-term conservation 

of sagegrouse.

CO BLM emc0329GB

1639. The following comments relate to the BLM’s management prescriptions for sage-grouse habitat on the lands it manages in 

northern Colorado by the Kremmling Field Office. We strongly urge that, in developing its west-wide strategy for 

protecting and enhancing sage-grouse habitat, the BLM withdraw from the mineral leasing and mining laws, all BLM lands 

harboring priority sage-grouse habitats managed by the BLM within the North Park area managed by the Kremmling Field 

office. Although Alternative C of the proposed Resource Management Plan under consideration makes significant strides 

towards conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in North Park, the other proposed alternatives do not adequately protect 

sage-grouse habitats on BLM lands from inappropriate mining and mineral activities, such as oil and gas leasing, exploration 

and development, and hard rock mining. Although Alternative C prudently withdraws “priority” sage-grouse habitat, we 

strongly urge that, in developing its west-wide strategy for protecting and enhancing sage-grouse habitat, the BLM withdraw 

from the mineral leasing and mining laws, all BLM lands harboring identified sage-grouse habitat, including winter 

concentration areas, managed by the BLM within the Kremmling Resource Area.

CO BLM emc0329GB

1640. The NESRSGWG has been working to conserve greater sage-grouse in Southern Routt and Northern Eagle Counties since 

1998. We finalized a local Northern Eagle/Southern Routt Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan in 2004 that was signed 

by local landowners, County Commissioners, Colorado Division of Wildlife, the BLM, the USFS, the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), and The Nature Conservancy. Landowners in the area have been implementing voluntary 

conservation actionson private land to maintain greater sage-grouse habitat. Some land owners may be less inclined to 

implement beneficial actions on private land if they feel they are losing options on the BLM and USFS grazing permits.

CO Both fxc0003RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-340 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1641. The NESRSGWG reviewed the Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) maps provided by 

CPW. The Work Group is concered that the majority of the sage-grouse habitat in Souther Routt and Northern Eagle is 

shown as PPH.

CO Both fxc0003RM

1642. The Work Group Does not believe that as large an area (as proposed by CPW) should be mapped as priority habitat in the 

Northern Eagle/Southern Routt (NESR) population.

CO Both fxc0003RM

1643. The NESRSGWG is concerned that the PPH maps will likely be used by parties other than the BLM to pressure private land 

owners to comply with additional regulations on private land to benefit sage-grouse habitat. The NESRSGWG Conservation 

Plan inclused many voluntary conservation actions for private land.

CO Both fxc0003RM

1644. Please clearly analyze and publish in the draft EIS the baseline (Current) amount of disturbance within the Northern Eagle 

and Southern Routt sage-grouse population area.

CO Both fxc0003RM

1645. Please also analyze the potential impacts to the Colorado River Valley and Little Snake Resource Areas if the 3% threshold 

is exceeded and the BLM is not able to allow anything considered an anthropogenic disturbance within the PPH.

CO Both fxc0003RM

1646. Should people help sagehens because we don't want just a scanty few on the endangered species list facing local extinction? 

Do sagehens have a right to life just as humans do because they have been in North Park millions of years and Europeans only 

150? In any event, if something isn't done to help the birds, they will be placed on a list that is the law of this land and will have 

consequences for some coal mining, livestock grazing, vehicle riding and much more.

CO Both rmc0016RM

1647. Tri-State requests th at the ELM include electric utility industry representatives in this communication process, in order to 

collaborate regarding the siting of electrical tran smission corridors (i.e., based on system needs) , while incorporating 

sage-grouse conservation. Identifying energy corridors that will not meet transmission system requirements or selecting

transmission paths that are infeasible for construction will significantly impact electrical providers like Tri-State, who are 

obligated to serve rural communities and customers throughout the Rocky Mounta in West. It is criti cal that the ELM 

understands electric utilities other federal requirements, policies and guidelines defined by the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) for the safe and reliab le operation 

of tran smission systems. Tri-State recommends that the DEIS and supplemental EIS documents includ e a documented

process for unders tanding electrical energy demands in areas where sage-grouse occur and evaluating utility corridors and 

ROWs for transmission line development, in coordination with local utility owners, operators, and local govemments and 

municipalities. The outcome of this approach will be a better understanding of future energy demands and a balanced 

approach to conserving sage-grouse and th eir habitat and identifying corridors.

CO BLM rmc0019RM

1648. We request that the BLM clarify in the DEIS and land use plans what is meant by " the extent allowed by law" in order for 

applicants to better understand the potential impacts to existing uses and authorizations on BLM administered lands.

CO Both rmc0019RM

1649. Tri-State is concerned th at if improving an existing access road exceeds the 3% disturbance allowance for any given area, 

access could be restricted by the BLM. Tri-State currently builds access roads to the minimum standard required for 

operation and maintenance purposes and complies with seasonal rest rictions in sensitive areas. Additional mitigation for 

existing access rights or prohibiting access improvements will affect our ability to safely maintain and operate existing 

facilities.

CO BLM rmc0019RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-341

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1650. The Sage-Grouse National Technical Team Report (2011) specifies the BLM should "Allow no upgrading of existing routes 

that would change route category or capacity unless the upgrading would have "minimal" impact on sage-grouse habitat, is 

necessary for motorist safety, or elimin ates the need to construct a new road." Could the BLM define in the DEIS analysis 

what will constitute a "minimal" impact? Tri-State requests that the BLM guidance document acknowledges the necessity of 

providing authorized access to existing facilities. In cases of emergency, a utility will be required to access the line and repair 

the damage to restore power immediately. We believe that having a permitted func tional access route will minimize overall

environmental impacts by keepin g our maintenance c rews in pre-approved designated areas and minimize unauthori zed 

off-road travel by the public.

CO BLM rmc0019RM

1651. Tri-State is concerned that some of the management recommendations in the Greater SageGrouse Interim Management 

Polic ies and Procedures are not feasible management options and may conflict with standards and federal regulations that 

utilities are required to comply with for safe and reliable delivery of power. For example, throughout the interim guidance 

document, the BLM ca lls for co-locating power lines within existing rights-of-way (ROWs). For operational and safety 

reasons, utilities cannot co-locate faci liti es within existing ROWs. Utilities are required to maintain clearances identified in 

the National Electric Safety Code for the safe and reliable operat ion of our transmission system . Tri-State requests the 

guidance and policy language is c1m·itied to state that lin ear facilities should be placed adjacent to or parallel ex isting ROWs 

(not co-located within) to the greatest extent feasible, in order to make this a viable management option and complies with 

utilities ' operation standards and guid elines.

CO BLM rmc0019RM

1652. It also is important to understand the limited feas ibility of certain protection measures initially iden tified in the BLM's 

Instructional Memo No. 2012-043, dated December 22, 2011 and the National Technical Team's Report (20 I I). Specifically, 

relevant guidance for " Rights-o f-Way (e .g., Renewable Energy Projects, Roads, Power Lines, and Pipelines)" contains some 

language th at could be problematic for both utility implementation and BLM enforcement. While many of the recommended 

measures identified in this section are viable approaches to protect sage-grouse in prox imity to power line ROWs, an 

example that may not be feasible includes; "Id entify technica lly feas ible best management practi ces, conditions, etc. (e.g., 

siting, buryi ng power lines) that may be implemented in order to eliminate or minimize impacts." A number of factors

influence the feasibility of burying power lines, including voltage, land use, terrain, soils and geology of the area, density of ex 

isting buried facilities (water gas, etc), highway crossings, surface water cross ings, floodplain s, and presence of other 

biological and cultural resources of concern . Burying high voltage transmission lines poses a significant operational issue for 

utilities and would substantially increase the cost of constructing high voltage transmission lines, which is then passed on to 

our customersDue to engineering constraints and the way power is transmitted and di stributed , the potential for burying 

power lines is limited by a number of factors, including certain vo ltage classes, location s, size of line, length of line, load 

serving characteristics etc, Tri-State has a Board Policy that states we will only consider burying transmission lines if the 

landowners andlor local jurisdictions agree to pay the difference in cost from overhead construction. Tri-State's Board

Policy also states that we will not construct underground high voltage lines in areas that would compromise the reliability of 

the transmission system. Examples of these scenarios include: constructing through difficult telTain, surface water crossings, 

floodplains, or areas with seasonally restricted access or uncertain geological conditions.

CO BLM rmc0019RM

1653. Direct impacts to sagebrush habitats increase when burying a transmission line versus building an overhead line. The ROW CO BLM rmc0019RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-342 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

required to construct and operate an underground transmission line is generally wider and would result in more direct 

impacts to sagebrush habitats, increasing habitat fragmentation for grouse. The Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan (2008) also acknowledges this issue and states, "Burying transmission lines can result in greater ground

disturbance and more regular maintenance in seeding and weed prevention. In addition, because of the inh erent limitations 

with bUlying power lines this approach could only apply to certain project scenarios and line voltages." This approach also 

fails to address the conservation of other federally and state listed species of concern associated with sagebrush habitats that 

would be affected from ground disturbance from burying a transmission line. Restoring sagebrush habitat and weed control 

in a wide linear corridor is inherently difficult and the BLM has acknowledged that sagebrush restoration can take decades to 

reach pre-construction results/co nditions. Minimizing impacts to sagebrush habitats is identified in the interim policies and 

guidance, but the recommendation to bury transmission lines contrad icts this approach.

1654. The DEIS should address how these conservation measures and plans can be viably implemented in a manner that will also 

comply with the Energy Act of 2005, which requires all state and federal agencies to grant utility access permits to promote 

reliable, renewable, energy production and transmission. The guidance as written, as well as the preliminary priority habitat 

maps created to support this effort would seem to exclude all development in large pOl1ions of northwestern Colorado and 

Wyoming and potentially conflict with the Energy Act of2005.

CO BLM rmc0019RM

1655. The BLM should identify which entity would be responsible for improving habitats to the 3% threshold level, to allow for 

additional development, grazing, recreation, etc in the priority habitat area. The DE[S should address how the final 

conservation measures address sage-grouse management on a landscape level, taking into account these variables.

CO BLM rmc0019RM

1656. Tri-State encourages the BLM to consider that conservation measures and mitigation alternatives should include additional 

research projects and funding to understand how linear above-ground features affect sage-grouse populations and

reproduction.

CO BLM rmc0019RM

1657. Tri-State requests that the BLM's DEIS and supplemental EISs for sage-grouse management review the results of these 

studies and incorporate adaptive management to iden tify appropriate and effective mitigation measures for potential 

impacts associated with tall structures. The National Techni cal Team states that tall structures "may" negatively impact 

grouse popUlations. The availability of the sc ience to date does not provide sufficient infonnation for land management 

agencies across the West to make educated decisions relative to sage-gro use and their responses to aboveground 

structures. This lack of data has resulted in and could continue to exacerbate agency deci sions that are not only infeasible 

for the electric utility induslly (e.g., burying power lines), but also are not structured to support grouse in the long tenn. 

Increased communication among all the stakeholders is encouraged in order to identify how this process to obtain the app 

licable data should move forward.

CO Both rmc0019RM

1658. Tri-State requests th at the BLM engage with members of industry to have a better understanding of utility construct ion and 

operational constraints relative to the recommended conservat ion meas ures to ensure they are reasonable and feasible 

given other fed eral and state requirements as well as general operational requirements.

CO BLM rmc0019RM

1659. The BLM approach does not satisfy BLM's mUltiple-use mandate, including the development of energy resources on public 

lands, and does not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). In the Sage-Grouse NOI, BLM articulates 

the purpose of the RMP amendments stating that Jhe RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be limited to making land use 

CO BLM rmc0021RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-343

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

planning decisions specific to the conservation of greater sage-grouse habitats." 76 Fed. Reg. at 77011 (emphasis added). 

Through the Sage-Grouse NOI, BLM reveals that the purpose and need for the amendments to the RMPs is not to evaluate 

the appropriateness of conserving greater sage-grouse habitats in light of BLM's mUltiple-use mandate-including the 

high-priority development of energy resources on public landsbut solely to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat. The Fact 

Sheet also explains that this is the intent, stating: "[t]he BLM is evaluating where the sage-grouse conservation measures in 

each Field Offices' plans are consistent with [the] National Technical Team's recommendations, and where we may need to

consider Plan Amendments through this sage-grouse EIS." See Fact Sheet at http://www . B 1m. Gov Ipgd a tal etcl m e d ia 

I I bIb I ml colp rogra mslwi I d life. Par.4 7886. File.d a tl sage%20gro use %20fact%20sheet%203-13-12.pdf. In fact, the Fact 

Sheet requests comments on how BLM can "incorporate (the Technical Report] into our NW Colorado Resource 

Management Plans." !!L Thus, the Fact Sheet assumes that the Technical Report recommendations are appropriate and 

should be included in the RMPs. Moreover, in the Sage-Grouse NOI and Technical Report, there is no suggestion of the need 

to consider competing public policy imperatives, or of resource management objectives which may be reflected in current 

RMPs. There are several problems with this narrow approach

1660. The Technical Report states its overall objective is "to protect priority sage-grouse habitats from anthropogenic 

disturbances that will reduce distribution or abundance of safe-grouse." NTI at 7. With respect to mineral development, the 

Technical Report steps even further, stating "the conservation strategy most likely to meet the objective of maintaining or 

increaSing sage-grouse distribution and abundance is to exclude energy development and other large scale disturbances from 

priority habitats." NTI at 21. Thus, the Sage-Grouse NOI and BLM reliance upon the recommendations in the Technical 

Report demonstrate that BLM seeks to inappropriately narrow the purpose and need for the RMP amendments in a manner 

that not only fails to appropriately consider BLM's multiple use mandate, but violates NEPA.

CO BLM rmc0021RM

1661. BLM should evaluate, rely upon, or draw from existing conservation plans during this NEPA and RMP amendment process. 

The Sage-Grouse NOI and the Technical Report's proposal to broadly revise all of the RMPs containing greater sage-grouse 

habitat ignore existing sage-grouse conservation plans and strategies. Both the State of Colorado and BLM itself have 

developed and adopted well-recognized programs for the conservation of greater sage-grouse habitat. See Colorado 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan at http://wildlife.state.co.us/W i I d I ifeS pecies/S peciesO fCo nce ro/B ird sIP 

ages/G rea terSa geG ro u seCo ns Pia n 2 .aspx; see also Parachute-Piceance-Roan Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 

at httD:I/WWW.google.com/url?sa=t&rct-i&g=&esrc-s&frm-1&source-web&cd-1&ved=OCCQQFjAA&urlhttp%

3A%2F%2Fwildlife . state. co. u s%2 FSiteCo Ilection Do cume nts%2 FDOW%2 FWi Id I ifeSDeci es%2 FSDeci e sOfCo n cer 

n %2 FG rea te rSageG ro u se%2 FG rea terSa ge G ro use P PR Co n se rva tio n Pia n .Dd f&e i = RodgT6uYLsit r

AeDvcCTAg&usg=AFQjCNFuxxAyOEuliEaubw-rsIIZtS6fSw&sig2=8vibDblYPBMRu8WvJJVW8A. In other settings, 

including the State of Wyoming, BLM has explicitly adopted and deferred to state conservation programs. Indeed, 

compatibility between resource management strategies on public and adjoining private lands will be essential to the success 

of any greater sage-grouse conservation program.

CO BLM rmc0021RM

1662. BLM's proposed overhaul of the RMPs to conserve sage-grouse essentially ignores this welldeveloped and well-supported 

conservation plan - relying almost solely on the Technical Report - a report completed by technical and scientific advisors, 

after less than 10 days of meetings, with no input from the public. Oxy respectfully disagrees with such an approach and 

CO BLM rmc0021RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-344 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

respectfully submits that BLM's failure to account for existing resource protection plans in the Sage-Grouse NOI and 

Technical Report requires BLM to revise the Sage-Grouse NOI and scoping plan-and recirculate it for public 

commentrequesting public comment on the effectiveness and reliance upon such plans for conservation of the sage grouse 

and its habitat. Additionally, Oxy respectfully submits that BLM's review of the RMPs and associated NEPA analysis must 

consider, as an alternative, deference to and reliance on existing conservation plans, such as the PPRSG Plan, in lieu of 

amendments to the RMPs. Instead of relying solely upon the recommendations contained within the Technical Report, BLM 

should evaluate the PPRSG Plan and the measures in the PPRSG Plan (as well as other similar plans) that reflect the myriad 

of approaches available for conservation of sage-grouse habitat while recognizing BLM's multiple use mandate. In particular, 

BLM should avoid a "one-size-fits-all" approach - such as that recommended in the Technical Report - and instead consider 

conservation measures that can be tailored to specific sites and locales; considering both the geography and diversity of land 

uses in particular areas. Reliance on the site-specific expertise of state and local wildlife authorities is a centerpiece of the 

PPRSG Plan, and a principal reason for its broad acceptance. Amendment of the RMPs to include the precepts of the PPRSG 

Plan would be preferable to establishment of a second, perhaps conflicting, conservation strategy.

1663. A failure to recognize the PPRSG either for the well-developed conservation measures established in that plan or in lieu of 

BLM's proposed RMP amendments could jeopardize the wellestablished coordination among the state (e.g., CDOW), local 

government (e.g., Garfield County) and other interested stakeholders (e.g., landowners, mineral developers and the 

conservation community).

CO BLM rmc0021RM

1664. As described above, Oxy has significant concerns that BlM's narrowly tailored purpose and need, combined with its 

premature reliance on the Technical Report, precludes conservation measures that provide for co-existence between the 

sage-grouse and mineral development. Oxy has developed fluid minerals in the Grand Junction RMP and Colorado River 

Valley RMP area for more than twenty years, working collaboratively with BLM, other state and federal agencies, local 

landowners, and stakeholders to ensure the efficient and responsible development of such minerals under its valid and 

existing lease rights. The greater sage-grouse is not listed as a threatened or endangered species, and no decision to that end 

is expected earlier than 2015. Though Oxy supports reasonable efforts by BLM and others to avoid a listing of the species as 

endangered or threatened, the Sage-Grouse NOI and Technical Report do not reflect a reasonable approach to 

conservation of the sage-grouse. Rather, the Technical Report and the aggressive approach proposed by BLM, presents a 

significant challenge and impediment toi mplementing successful efforts that would preserve the viability of the sage-grouse 

and the integrity of energy development.

CO BLM rmc0021RM

1665. The copy of the December 2L 2011 Sage Grouse 01ational Technical Team ·'Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures·' as I understand will be used in part or whole to develop the EIS, as an alternative for the EIS, or 

preferably not used at all.

CO Both rmc0050RM

1666. As an agency we have supported sage grouse conservation and protection in accordance with the on the Colorado Greater 

Sage-grouse Working Group Conservation Plan (a cooperative effort) developed in 2008 and the Little Snake RMP. It 

appears that this 2008 plan would be sufficient with possible minor tweaking. And could be used as an ElS alternative.

CO Both rmc0050RM

1667. Brush treatment, water development and other positive impacts to sage-grouse should be noted as a part of the tech report 

and be included in the EJS evaluation.

CO Both rmc0050RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-345

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1668. I ask that Colorado BLM demonstrate a real commitment to updating the standards in its management plans to conserve 

sage-grouse based on the latest science.

CO BLM flm0000RM

1669. The BLM should focus the strongest protections on the most important sage-grouse habitats, which is often where the 

largest number of grouse are found this increases chances for success. The BLM should protect a large enough area of 

priority habitat, to maintain AND increase sage-grouse populations.

CO BLM flm0000RM

1670. I ask that Colorado BLM demonstrate a real commitment to updating the standards in its management plans to conserve 

sage-grouse based on the latest science.

CO BLM fll0000RM

1671. The BLM should update standards based on the latest science. A scientific panel selected by the BLM outlined conservation 

measures that are an important starting point for effective conservation, in the 2011 ‘Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures’. These conservation measures should be put into practice to the fullest extent 

possible, with some refinements to better address local issues.

CO BLM fll0000RM

1672. The December 9,2011 NO! published by BLM is unclear as to how the Resource Management PIan (RMP) revision process 

for greater sage-grouse conservation ongoing in Wyoming will be incorporated into the proposed Rocky Mountain Regional 

effort. For project applicants, such as PCW and its affiliates, with significant undertakings in Wyoming, this creates 

uncertainty as projects proceed through the ROW application review process. In addition, a duplication of effort by 

applicants is necessary as participation in both processes is required.

East Both emc0399GB

1673. BLM's 1M 2012-043 "Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures" specifically excludes Wyoming 

because af Governor Meads Executive Order 2011-5 "Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection." If that is the case, why 

is BLM including it in the Eastern Region Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy?

East Both emc0228GB, 

emc0093rm

1674. WWF believes that the aforementioned threats to greater sage-grouse should be given special consideration during the 

development of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Eastern Region of sage-grouse habitat. Using the best-available 

data on the impact of these threats to greater sage-grouse, we encourage the BLM to incorporate regulations and 

management practices that avoid these threats in sage-grouse core areas and mitigate the impacts of these threats across the 

remaining sage-grouse habitat.

East Both emc0034RM

1675. On behalf of our organizations and hundreds of thousands of concerned members across the region and the nation, we 

commend the BLM and the FS for their recent efforts to coordinate resources and develop range-wide, science-based 

strategies for sage-grouse conservation. At this crucial point in protection efforts, it is clear that: 1) past efforts have failed 

to sufficiently conserve sage-grouse and their habitat, resulting in the 2010 finding by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) that listing the greater sage-grouse is "warranted but precluded"; and 2) there is an urgent need to develop and 

implement substantive conservation measures between now and 2015, when the USFWS will reconsider the species’ status.

East Both emc0089RM

1676. Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture leadership in committing to rangewide planning based on sound 

science is greatly appreciated, especially as development pressures on our public lands are expected to increase. We are 

committed to working constructively with responsible officials toward policies designed to maximize the chances for

successful long-term conservation of the species and its habitat. The land management agencies will play a crucial role in 

species and habitat protection efforts. Accordingly, application of management prescriptions in the Resource Management 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-346 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Plan (RMP) and Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) revisions and amendments will determine whether negative 

trends in greater sage-grouse populations can be reversed. At the same time, the BLM and FS will need the support of many 

other agencies and stakeholders to achieve success. These include USFWS, state fish and game agencies, conservation and 

wildlife groups, private landowners, industry partners and federal permittees, and elected officials at all levels across the 

region.

1677. The eastern/Rocky Mountain region map of regional breeding densities, when compared to historical maps of the bird’s 

range and the extent of healthy sagebrush ecosystems, illustrates: 1) the challenge we face in coming years and; 2) the 

urgency of achieving effective sage-grouse conservation by incorporating science-based recommendations that were 

unavailable only a few years ago. It is critical to achieve success in conserving the greater sage-grouse, dozens of sagebrush 

obligate species, and the vital ecosystem on which these species depend. Wyoming’s Core Areas Strategy, established with 

diverse and committed stakeholder support, can help to inform efforts as management policies are developed for other 

populations in the region. This regional effort provides a critical opportunity to build upon Wyoming’s approach, scaling it to

the unique circumstances of adjacent states, where smaller sage-grouse populations and less remaining habitat heighten the 

importance of applying strong, science-based protections.

East Both emc0089RM

1678. The recent report released by the BLM’s Sage-grouse National Technical Team, A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures, provides important biologically-based guidance on how the agency can meet its multiple use and 

sustained yield mission. The Technical Team Report provides an excellent summary of the latest science regarding the status

of greater sage-grouse populations, habitat threats, and management strategies to reverse the precipitous decades-long 

decline in populations and habitat function. The BLM and FS recognize the urgent need to incorporate recommendations 

from the best available science to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework, in coordination with USFWS, that will 

reverse sage-grouse population declines.

East Both emc0089RM

1679. The guiding principle of these planning efforts for each covered federal planning unit (RMPs and LMPs listed in the Federal 

Register Notice) must be to develop permanent policies committed to maintaining and increasing the abundance and 

distribution of greater sage-grouse both within the planning area and on adjacent lands and habitat. This effort will require 

the development of strategies to conserve, enhance and restore the sagebrush ecosystem across the species’ range.

East Both emc0089RM

1680. History has taught us that landscape approaches must be informed by a comprehensive analysis of the potential direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts of all known and reasonably foreseeable threats to the bird and its habitat. Although the 

BLM, FS and other federal land managers are central to this conservation effort, successful efforts to sustain and increase 

sage-grouse populations will also depend on management strategies and conservation efforts on state and private lands 

within the bird’s range. Protecting migration corridors and maintaining habitat connectivity will play an essential role in 

successful conservation strategies.

East Both emc0089RM

1681. Our groups are committed to working constructively with BLM, FS, state agencies, and other entities to develop and 

implement successful conservation strategies that are a win-win for the American West and a model for how proactive, 

science-based, collaborative management policies can address the threats to an imperiled endemic ecosystem.

East Both emc0089RM

1682. The March 2010 USFWS listing decision for the greater sage-grouse stated that listing was "warranted but precluded" due to 

higher listing priorities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This decision confirms long-standing concerns about this 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-347

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

iconic western species. The Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) has recognized greater sagegrouse

as challenged since 1954. Based on current estimates, greater sage-grouse populations in North America have declined as 

much as 93% from presumed historic levels and have been extirpated from approximately 44% of their former range 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, Braun 2006). Sage-grouse are thought to have declined at an overall rate of 2 percent per year from 

1965 to 2003 (Connelly et al. 2004), likely as a result of habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. The 2010 "warranted" 

finding and supporting analysis cited and followed a host of scientific data and literature, representing some of the most 

recent scientific information on current populations, habitat trends, and threats. These include the 2004 WAFWA 

Conservation Assessment, the suite of articles published as an extensive monograph in the peer-reviewed journal Studies in 

Avian Biology (Knick and Connelly 2011), as well as the December 2011 Sage-grouse National Technical Team’s Report on 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. When reconsidering the status of the species, the USFWS must 

examine whether threats to the species are effectively addressed by science-based conservation measures and 

comprehensive regulatory mechanisms are in place to ensure that those actions occur. The USFWS has identified the 

principal regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures in Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The USFWS 

findings identified the top five threats in the eastern range as: oil and gas development, infrastructure, invasive species, 

wildfire, and livestock grazing/agricultural conversion. In addition renewable energy development is on the rise throughout 

the species’ range; including proposals for associated transmission and rights-of-way (ROW) infrastructure (Exhibits 1-3).

1683. As the BLM and FS proceed with regional conservation efforts, an open and transparent process is fundamentally important. 

The agencies should maintain a publicly available consolidated clearinghouse of essential data and information, including all 

state-level Preliminary Priority and General Habitat data and maps, as well as any other high-level mapping and modeling

information that facilitates public involvement in these planning processes and allows stakeholders to evaluate proposed 

conservation measures. Failure to make such information publicly available undermines the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA)1 , and failure to address this issue could undercut the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy by

preventing stakeholders from constructively engaging in this process.

East Both emc0089RM

1684. Both the BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2012-044 and 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-043 reference 

Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat data to identify key sage-grouse habitat, dictate management

prescriptions and analyze conservation actions within those areas.2 Unfortunately, despite BLM’s strong coordinating effort 

with the states and its inclusion of some information on its national sage-grouse website, the information cited by the IMs is 

currently unavailable to the public. Although the Instruction Memoranda suggest that non-BLM personnel may access this

information through the respective state agencies;3 our experience is that such availability is severely limited or nonexistent, 

depending on the state agency involved. To remedy this deficiency, the BLM and FS should incorporate procedures to 

guarantee that geospatial and ecological data and maps are completed in a timely fashion and are available to the public in a

comprehensive central clearinghouse. Habitat data, maps, and ecological modeling information will facilitate informed 

decisionmaking and meaningful public involvement. Although these habitat maps are expected to play a central role in 

implementation of the IMs and management decisions made as part of the national planning process, they are yet to be 

completed for all of the states. This information is urgently needed to facilitate constructive public engagement.

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-348 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1685. The BLM and FS should ensure that all geospatial data and modeling information used to develop sage-grouse conservation 

measures be made publicly available as soon as possible. Such information includes, but is not limited to: • Priority and 

general habitats delineated by BLM and the state wildlife agencies; • Seasonal habitats beyond breeding areas (e.g., winter 

concentration areas); • Complementary delineations of priority habitats across state borders; • Important corridors and 

transition habitat, including those that might not be identified on state maps; • Valid existing federal mineral lease rights, 

including oil and gas, other leasable minerals, and locatable minerals; and • Other valid existing rights (e.g., rights-of-way)

East Both emc0089RM

1686. Recommendations: The BLM and FS should provide a publicly available, comprehensive clearinghouse of essential data, maps 

and other information detailed above. Because some habitat maps have not yet been developed, the BLM and FS should 

provide adequate time for review and comment following completion and once they have been made available to the public.

East Both emc0089RM

1687. 4. THE AGENCIES SHOULD COMMIT TO IDENTIFICATION OF YEAR-ROUND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS 

According to the NTT report, "priority sage‐grouse habitats are areas that have the highest conservation value to 

maintaining or increasing sage‐grouse populations. These areas would include breeding, late brood‐rearing, winter 

concentration areas, and where known, migration or connectivity corridors." Often transitional habitat, such as migration or 

connectivity corridors, necessary for sage-grouse to travel through the landscape (Knick and Hanser 2011) to vital seasonal 

habitat, is not adequately recognized and incorporated into sage-grouse conservation and management. The interim 

guidance released by BLM in December, 20114 does little to provide guidelines for the preservation or inventory of 

important sage-grouse transition habitat, and our organizations seek to assure that the full suite of habitat requirements is 

incorporated into the final guidance on RMP revisions for sage-grouse.

East Both emc0089RM

1688. Recommendations: According to the Technical Team’s report, "Sage‐grouse dispersal (permanent moves to other areas) is 

poorly understood" and that it "appears to be sporadic." BLM should provide guidelines for the preservation or inventory of 

important sage-grouse transition habitat. BLM should also create management policies that are low-risk and will protect 

areas that may likely serve as important corridors and transition habitat due to the proximity of these areas to highly 

productive habitat and lek sites.

East Both emc0089RM

1689. 5. THE AGENCIES MUST ANALYZE AN ADEQUATE RANGE OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives 

section is "the heart of the environmental impact statement" and an agency violates NEPA by failing to "rigorously explore 

and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives" to the proposed action (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14).5 Accordingly, the BLM and 

FS need to ensure that an adequate range of alternatives is presented in the DEIS. The consideration of a range of 

environmentally protective alternatives is consistent with the FLPMA’s requirement that the agencies "minimize adverse 

impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific, cultural, and other resources and values (including fish and wildlife habitat) 

of the public lands involved" (43 U.S.C. §1732(d)(2)(a)). The BLM and FS must consider alternatives reflecting the full suite 

of appropriate management prescriptions that weigh the relative values of resources while contributing towards the greatest

conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. The multiple conservation alternatives should incorporate a full 

range of policies targeting specific habitat types and a broad spectrum of protective measures. The range of alternatives 

should include those outlined below. An agency violates its obligation to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and to 

take NEPA’s hard look at environmental impacts when it only looks at "straw men" for comparison, which the agency has no 

intention of accepting and are put forth only to lead to the agency’s already foregone conclusion. See, e.g., California v. Block, 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-349

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982); Blue Mountains Diversity Project v. U.S. Forest Service, 229 F.Supp.2d 1140 (D.Or. 2002); 

Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Singleton, 47 F.Supp.2d 1182 (D.Or. 1998).

1690. i. All alternatives should include strong protections for greater sage-grouse All of the alternatives (other than the ‘no action’ 

alternative) must include strong protections to conserve the greater sage-grouse. At a minimum, all action alternatives 

should include sciencebased conservation measures that address all of the primary threats to greater sage-grouse.

East Both emc0089RM

1691. Each alternative should designate areas of contiguous sage-grouse habitat not currently subject to mineral leases or other 

valid existing rights for permanent protection. These remaining refugia can provide intact, diverse, high quality sagebrush 

habitat, vital to sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species. In Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-013, the Wyoming 

BLM proposed 11 contiguous square miles or sections as an appropriate minimum size for an area of habitat to qualify for 

being set-aside from development.6 The Wyoming BLM recognized these large unleased contiguous blocks as opportunities 

for grouse conservation. This number should be scaled to allow for protecting smaller contiguous areas in states with smaller 

populations than Wyoming’s, or in areas where there are few remaining contiguous 11-square-mile areas that are not 

subject to valid existing rights. These identified, contiguous areas of undeveloped land should be considered for designation 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in all alternatives. (See Section 8 on ACECs for further discussion)

East Both emc0089RM

1692. All alternatives should include baseline protections for priority and general habitat. General sage-grouse habitat is defined as 

occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat. Improved guidelines must be developed to ensure that 

science-based prescriptions protect general habitat. Additionally, a sufficient amount of greater sage-grouse habitat must be

protected to meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing sage-grouse populations while allowing appropriate resource use. 

This is essential in order to maintain connectivity and sustain and increase sage-grouse populations into the future. These 

protections will differ based upon the local sage-grouse populations and the cumulative threats on the landscape. All 

alternatives must also address smaller, isolated populations using an appropriately scaled response.

East Both emc0089RM

1693. Recommendations: All action alternatives must include adequate baseline protections including the following: 1) limit 

development to areas with low conflicts with sage-grouse conservation, 2) full, permanent protections for contiguous 

priority habitat, 3) stringent protections for other key habitat if some development might be allowed, 4) designate Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern and provide assurances that they will be managed appropriately and 5) provide baseline 

protections for priority and general habitat. All alternatives should advance sage-grouse conservation and establish a 

comprehensive regulatory framework to provide the best opportunity to prevent the need to list the greater sage-grouse 

under the ESA.

East Both emc0089RM

1694. ii. BLM and FS must take a ‘hard look’ at implementation of the conservation measures outlined in the National Technical 

Team Report and incorporate these measures in more than one alternative. IM 2012-0447 provides direction to BLM for 

considering conservation measures recommended by the National Technical Team (NTT) Report.8 The IM directs BLM to 

appropriately consider and analyze the conservation measures developed by the NTT, through the land-use planning

process, in all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied greater sage-grouse habitat9. To achieve the goal of 

maintaining and increasing greater sage-grouse populations, the BLM and FS must develop management prescriptions that 

are supported by the best available science. The NTT recommendations constitute the findings of an expert team of 

professionals, including many of BLM’s own scientists, regarding the management prescriptions that should be applied in

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-350 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

order to ensure that this planning process ultimately results in regulatory mechanisms that maintain and increase greater 

sage-grouse populations. The IM notes that there may be some adjustments to these conservation measures in order to 

address ecological site variability. In the event of possible inconsistencies between the recommendations and applicable 

statutes and regulations, BLM is to consider the conservation measure(s) to the fullest extent possible as range-wide 

standards, consistent with its legal authority.

1695. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: Designate priority habitat 

to include breeding, late-brood rearing and winter concentration areas, as well as migration and connectivity corridors. 

Priority habitat areas must be large enough to achieve the goal of maintaining and increasing current sage-grouse abundance 

and distribution.

East Both emc0089RM

1696. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: Fully protect priority 

habitat from large scale disturbances (e.g., transmission lines, oil and gas wells, graded roads, etc.) that will affect population 

distribution and abundance at any level.

East Both emc0089RM

1697. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: If priority habitat cannot be 

fully protected from energy development due to valid existing rights, minimize impacts by limiting permitted disturbances to 

one per section with no more than 3% surface disturbance. Ensure that small scale disturbances do not cumulatively disturb 

more than 3% of each priority area.

East Both emc0089RM

1698. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: Increase the amount of 

protected priority habitat by aggressively pursuing available tools, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary grazing 

permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts.

East Both emc0089RM

1699. We recognize the challenge inherent in full implementation of the NTT’s recommendations, given social, political and legal 

factors associated with the need to maximize greater sage-grouse conservation efforts while providing for an appropriate 

level of continued energy development and other activities on our public lands. We are committed to working closely with 

the BLM and FS to achieve this balance. However, given the sage-grouse’s current precarious position, the BLM and FS have 

an opportunity to be proactive in their protection efforts. We strongly encourage BLM and FS to avoid making proposed 

modifications to the NTT recommendations and to keep any such adjustments within the narrowest possible range. Any 

proposed deviations from the NTT’s recommendations should be clearly outlined by the agencies, and resulting 

management prescriptions should be consistent with the best available science and the goal of maintaining and increasing 

greater sage-grouse populations. For instance, in areas with relatively small surviving sage-grouse populations and high levels 

of ongoing energy development, fully protecting remaining birds and remnant habitat should be the management priority.

East Both emc0089RM

1700. In addition, various aspects of the recommendations should be considered. They should not be simply considered and 

rejected as a whole, since the recommendations provide a range of uses and management approaches.

East Both emc0089RM

1701. Recommendations: The EISs should analyze at least one alternative for each RMP and LMP that incorporates all of the NTT’s 

recommendations, as required in IM 2012-244. The "full recommendations" alternative should be seriously considered, and 

not simply rejected as a "straw man." The remaining alternatives in the EISs should incorporate portions of the NTT’s 

recommendations.

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-351

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1702. iii. BLM and FS should consider an alternative that applies the recommendations of the National Technical Team in a subset 

of priority habitat. In addition to an alternative implementing the NTT’s recommendations across all priority habitats, the 

agencies should analyze an alternative that fully incorporates the recommended conservation measures across a large 

proportion of priority habitat. The subset of priority habitat must be of sufficient size to meet the goal of maintaining and 

enhancing greater sage-grouse populations. Application of these measures in a subset of priority habitat should be combined

with the measures recommended previously for consideration in all alternatives. An alternative limiting application of the 

recommendations to only a subset of priority habitat should not be selected unless qualified scientists, including USFWS 

professionals, agree that the priority habitat so protected will achieve the goal of maintaining and increasing greater 

sagegrouse populations.

East Both emc0089RM

1703. Recommendation: Each RMP and LMP should analyze at least one alternative that incorporates the NTT’s recommendations 

across a subset of priority habitat.

East Both emc0089RM

1704. iv. The BLM and FS should analyze an alternative that provides more protection than that afforded by implementation of the 

National Technical Team’s Recommendations. The BLM and FS should consider an alternative that: • Includes 

conservation measures recommended by the NTT Report. • Combines this with designations of a subset of priority habitat 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern that receive a higher level of protection than that recommended by the NTT. •

Incorporates improvements to the NTT’s recommendations, including the following: o Avoid sagebrush reduction/ 

treatments to increase livestock or big game forage in priority habitat and include plans to restore high-quality habitat in 

areas with invasive species. O Implement range management practices outlined by the NTT, with improvements, including 

avoiding new range and water developments that negatively impact sage-grouse and applying the 3% disturbance cap to 

certain range developments. O Design fuel treatments to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems (including avoiding such 

treatments where they will harm sagebrush ecosystems) and prioritize fire suppression to conserve the highest quality 

habitat. O Ensure that disturbance or uses that are permitted adjacent to priority habitat don’t negatively impact 

sage-grouse populations in priority habitat,10 thus negating the value of designated priority habitats. O Include small or 

isolated populations (such as those along the periphery of the greater sage-grouse’s range) in priority habitat, and protect 

and enhance such populations with science-based prescriptions.

East Both emc0089RM

1705. Recommendation: Each RMP and LMP should analyze an alternative that includes protective conservation measures that go 

beyond those in the NTT Report, including ACEC designations and the other improvements enumerated above.

East Both emc0089RM

1706. The BLM released IM 2010-012 on January 4, 2010. In it, the BLM committed to management prescriptions that were 

outlined in the 2008 Wyoming Executive Order (EO), and set thresholds for energy development densities and cumulative 

surface disturbance in core areas, that would protect grouse habitat over the long term. This approach was first developed 

in 2008 and subsequently updated by Wyoming’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) – a task force convened by 

former Governor Freudenthal, and comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders. The SGIT’s recommendations were 

formalized in a series of EOs that affirm the core areas conservation strategy. Established with broad bipartisan support, this 

science-based strategy focused on conserving sage-grouse by providing the species with additional protections in areas with 

the highest remaining concentrations. Wyoming’s Governor Mead revised and reauthorized the strategy in EO 2011-5, 

issued on June 2, 2001. 2011. Since the Wyoming Core Area Strategy was developed relatively recently, it has yet to be

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-352 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

formally adopted by any federal RMP or LRP in Wyoming. BLM field offices are now in the process of revising or amending 

RMPs to incorporate the Core Area Strategy. The BLM Wyoming State Office is the first in the region to initiate a planning 

effort to amend six RMPs (Casper, Kemmerer, New Castle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Green River) to incorporate conservation 

policies based on BLM Wyoming’s IM 2010-012 and on the Core Area Strategy, as formalized in the Wyoming Eos. The area 

under revision includes approximately 11 million acres of public land surface and 20 million acres of federal mineral estate. 

In addition, four other field offices (Bighorn Basin, Buffalo, Lander, and Rock Springs) have RMPs that currently are being 

revised, providing managers with a timely opportunity to implement needed changes in the management and conservation of 

greater sage-grouse habitat.

1707. ii. Support from USFWS BLM Wyoming State Office’s decision to adopt the Core Area Strategy followed the USFWS’s

endorsement. In a July 2009 letter from USFWS to the Director of Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), former 

USFWS Field Supervisor Brian Kelly stated that: "the Strategy is a science-driven, outcome-based and adaptive approach to 

the conservation of a species and its habitat"11. Kelly continued, "In the context of a potential listing under the ESA, the 

State’s sagegrouse Strategy provides a useful framework to show how the threats to the species are being managed; and if 

the Strategy is adopted across different land ownerships in the state, could provide an important regulatory mechanism as 

well." In a June 2011 letter from USFWS to Governor Mead’s office, USFWS Field Supervisor Mark Sattelberg confirmed 

continued support. "The Service believes the [latest] Executive Order can result in the long-term conservation of the 

Greater sage-grouse and thus reduce the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If fully implemented, we believe the Executive Order can provide the conservation program necessary 

to achieve your goal of precluding listing of the Greater sage-grouse in Wyoming."12 However, USFWS cautioned that "[t]o 

be effective, State, Federal, and private landowners must all implement this Executive Order." As manager of nearly one third 

of the state’s land and nearly two-thirds of the mineral estate, BLM became proactive in addressing sage-grouse conservation 

in Wyoming. The success of these efforts will depend on continued willingness to adhere to stringent, science-based 

strategies, to carefully implement protection measures, and to retain stakeholder support.

East BLM emc0089RM

1708. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Wyoming’s Executive Order was developed with consistent support from 

the Governor’s office, based on the realization that proactive, science-based conservation strategies were urgently needed 

to conserve sage-grouse. The SGIT was charged with developing recommendations for a Wyoming approach. The group’s 

initial core area boundaries were largely based on regional breeding densities of sage-grouse, giving a scientific basis to the 

conservation strategy. Core area boundaries were then modified based on input from local working groups (in which WGFD

was involved), which made adjustments to exclude lands that historically did not support grouse, had isolated or small 

scattered leks, or were undergoing or slated to undergo intensive development and/or urbanization based on valid existing 

rights. Excluding high development areas reflected the understanding that highly disturbed areas are generally not suitable as 

core grouse habitat, and are unlikely to retain healthy grouse populations long-term.

East Both emc0089RM

1709. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Importantly, Wyoming’s designated core areas include connectivity areas, 

breeding areas, and late brood-rearing habitat (all of which are stressed by the NTT). The Core Area Strategy also

recognized the importance of winter concentration areas. Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 states, "While the bulk of 

winter habitat necessary to support core sage-grouse populations likely occurs inside Core Population Areas, seasonal 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-353

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

stipulations (December 1 to March 14) should be considered in locations outside Core Population Areas where they have 

been identified as winter concentration areas necessary for supporting biologically significant numbers of sage-grouse nesting 

in Core Population Areas. All efforts should he made to minimize disturbance to mature sagebrush cover in identified winter 

concentration areas."

1710. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Priority habitats should be large enough to stabilize sage-grouse 

populations in the short term and enhance grouse populations over the long term. Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy is 

designed to protect 83% of the greater sage-grouse population within approximately 25% of the state’s land mass.

East Both emc0089RM

1711. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Wyoming’s strategy emphasizes stronger protections within core areas, 

with less stringent protections and greater management flexibility in non-core areas as an incentive for development to leave 

core areas intact. While this strategy acknowledges that non-core area grouse populations will likely decline due to loss and 

fragmentation of habitat, monitoring must take place to prevent the extirpation of populations and maintain connectivity 

among subpopulations. In non-core areas, lek persistence must be maintained over the long term, with sufficient proportions 

of sage-grouse populations remaining to maintain connectivity and movements.

East Both emc0089RM

1712. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Within core areas, stipulations on BLM, FS, Wind River Indian Reservation, 

and State of Wyoming lands limit the number of projects and the amount of allowed disturbance (no more than 5%13) 

allowed per square mile or 640 acres. Surface disturbance is prohibited within a 0.6 mile buffer around active leks (no surface 

occupancy - NSO), which includes roads during the breeding, nesting and brood-rearing periods (mid-March through end of 

June). In addition, a March 15 to June 30 timing limitation stipulation is required within nesting habitat within 4 miles of leks.

Main roads used to transport production and/or waste products must be more than 1.9 miles from the perimeter of 

occupied grouse leks. Other roads used for access or maintenance must be more than 0.6 miles from the perimeter of 

occupied leks. Noise levels at the perimeter of a lek should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise from 6 pm to 8 am, so 

as not to disturb breeding activities (March 1 - May 15). Finally, proponents of new projects are expected to coordinate with 

the permitting agency and WGFD biologists to determine which leks need to be monitored and what data should be 

collected/reported. The Executive Order clearly identifies thresholds and outline adaptive management responses if declines 

in sage-grouse numbers occur14. However, in non-core areas, the EO recommends a 2-mile seasonal buffer around 

occupied leks and a 0.25 mile NSO buffer around active leks. Research has shown that the latter stipulation is inadequate and 

scientifically without merit. In addition, a surface disturbance cap is lacking from non-core area stipulations.

East Both emc0089RM

1713. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach The Wyoming strategy provides that "[t]he protective stipulations outlined 

in this Executive Order should be reevaluated on a continuous basis and at a minimum annually, as new science, information 

and data emerge regarding Core Population Areas and the habitats and behaviors of the Greater Sage-Grouse." Wyoming 

EO 2011-5 at 4.

East Both emc0089RM

1714. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Of particular importance are the following statements from the 2009 

USFWS letter signed by former USFWS Field Supervisor Kelly, "Potential benefits of the Strategy will only be realized if the 

integrity of the core area approach is maintained. The Service feels that the greatest threats to the integrity of the core areas 

are: (1) not adhering to science-based conservation measures associated with development, and (2) allowing mitigation for 

impacts to core population areas as an option if the proposed development is counter to accepted conservation measures 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-354 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

or when impacts are not known."

1715. Recommendations: Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy, established with diverse and strong stakeholder support in Wyoming 

and endorsed by the USFWS, can inform regional sagegrouse conservation efforts as management policies are tailored for 

other habitat and populations in the region. However, the successful implementation of Wyoming’s core area strategy will be 

critical to the success of the strategy in Wyoming and critical to the applicability and success of this model if it is to be applied 

regionally. In addition, the regional sage-grouse conservation effort provides a critical opportunity to appropriately scale 

Wyoming’s approach. Other states have unique circumstances, such as smaller populations and lower quality, fragmented 

habitat, heightening the importance of adopting stronger, science-based protections to increase the chances of conserving 

and recovering habitat and populations that may be less robust than those in Wyoming.

East Both emc0089RM

1716. As we have not yet seen maps of priority habitat for most states, it is difficult to comment on how ACECs should be 

designated in relation to priority habitat. Ideally, priority habitat will be delineated to encompass breeding, late-brood rearing 

and winter concentration areas, as well as migration and connectivity corridors - consistent with the NTT’s Report. Priority 

protected habitat areas must be large enough to maintain and increase current sage-grouse abundance and distribution. For 

the purposes of the discussion below, we assume that priority habitat will encompass sufficient habitat to maintain at least 

80-90% of the current sage-grouse population in each state. If priority habitat is of sufficient size, then ACECs may be a 

subset of priority habitats in most states. The NTT’s recommendations should be used as a starting point for achieving

effective conservation in priority habitats. BLM should strive to implement them to the fullest extent possible as range-wide 

standards in each RMP, while refining them further to better address specific issues (such as vegetation management and 

energy development) consistent with the best available science. ACECs should prescribe maximum protections for, and

comprehensive monitoring of, sage-grouse populations.

East Both emc0089RM

1717. Therefore, in order to maximize conservation benefit given other competing values, we recommend protective management 

of priority habitat (which should include enough habitat to conserve at least 80-90% of the existing population), along with 

designation of ACECs informed by the following additional criteria: Prioritize providing resources to ACEC designation, 

plan development and plan implementation.

East Both emc0089RM

1718. Sage-grouse populations are dependent upon healthy sagebrush ecosystems. Reclaiming or recovering sagebrush habitats is 

extremely challenging. Efforts should be directed towards improving our ability to effectively reclaim degraded habitat, which 

requires gathering sitespecific baseline (pre-treatment) data to adequately evaluate success. Reclamation should be

mandatory and managers must recognize that methods for achieving success vary by region and are site-specific. Reclamation 

efforts should be monitored and results maintained in a single database to improve public understanding and effectiveness of 

efforts. A process should be established to identify and address failed reclamation projects and to adjust management

prescriptions in the affected area.

East Both emc0089RM

1719. 10. THE AGENCIES SHOULD REQUIRE MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Implementation of an 

effective monitoring and adaptive management process with performance-based standards for each RMP is critical to the 

success of this effort. In addition to developing management prescriptions for sage-grouse, plans should establish triggers and 

thresholds for adaptive management throughout the species’ range.23 Consequences that will result if triggers or thresholds 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-355

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

are reached must be clearly outlined. Triggers could include sage-grouse population target ranges, target levels of survival 

and recruitment in particular areas, measures of the cumulative level of surface disturbance, and oil-gas well densities in core 

areas. Consequences that would result if triggers are reached would include increases in protective measures. Monitoring 

must be required and adequately funded.

1720. 11. THE AGENCIES SHOULD CAREFULLY CONSIDER USE OF MITIGATION AND ENSURE THAT MITIGATION 

GENERATES NET CONSERVATION BENEFITS BLM’s habitat mitigation policy, codified at 43 C.F.R. § 1508.20, lists 

habitat mitigation actions in descending order of preference: avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction, and

compensation. As BLM considers the siting and impacts of proposed new energy projects, it must keep in mind this 

mitigation hierarchy and consider "avoidance" the foremost objective. The BLM and FS should require off-site mitigation for 

impacts which cannot be mitigated onsite, or where landscape approaches to mitigation offer opportunities to address 

conservation needs on a larger scale while generating net conservation benefits for sage-grouse. Off-site mitigation should 

follow these guidelines: 1) be a "net conservation benefit" requirement for resources and values; 2) a requirement for project 

developers to fund mitigation efforts based on the amount and value of the land impacted from development; 3) a centralized 

body should be established to oversee the funds and maximize the effectiveness of their use; and 4) off-site mitigation should 

be required to take place in the same ecoregion as the project site. The increase in compensation and offsite mitigation will 

require careful management and new approaches. The importance of mitigation was reinforced on January 14, 2011, with the 

release of the new CEQ Guidance on "Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of 

Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact."

East Both emc0089RM

1721. NEPA requires that BLM discuss mitigation measures in an EIS. (40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16.) In order to show that 

mitigation will reduce environmental impacts to an insignificant level, BLM must discuss the mitigation measures "in sufficient 

detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated." 25 Simply identifying mitigation measures, 

without analyzing the effectiveness of the measures, violates NEPA. Agencies must "analyze the mitigation measures in detail 

[and] explain how effective the measures would be . . . A mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient to qualify as the 

reasoned discussion required by NEPA."26 NEPA also directs that the "possibility of mitigation" should not be relied upon 

as a means to avoid further environmental analysis.27 Further, general statements that BLM will conduct monitoring are also 

not an appropriate form of mitigation. Simply monitoring for expected damage does not actually reduce or alleviate any 

impacts.

East Both emc0089RM

1722. Key considerations for off-site mitigation should include: • Identification of uses, resources and values associated with the 

project site. Establishing the connection between off-site mitigation and the resources of the public lands will require detailed 

understanding and knowledge of the values and uses present on the project site before development occurs, such as wildlife 

habitat, various recreational uses (ranging from hunting to bird watching to all terrain vehicle use) and scenic values. BLM

should require that necessary inventory of the project site be completed prior to developing off-site mitigation measures. •

Requirements for project developers to fund mitigation efforts based on the amount and value of the land impacted from 

development. Project developers should be required to make deposits to a mitigation fund based on the amount of land used 

for the project and the fair market value of that land, the costs of any restoration or enhancement actions necessary to 

produce a net conservation benefit, and the stewardship costs necessary to maintain conservation benefits over time. • If 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-356 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

funds are received as a part of mitigation, a centralized body should be established to oversee the funds and maximize the 

effectiveness of their use. BLM should establish a centralized body comprised of BLM staff, and other federal and state 

agencies with expertise and interest to oversee the distribution of funds and maximize the effectiveness of their use. This 

body should be required to take into consideration recommendation from the public in the distribution of funds.

1723. Mitigation protections will require additional and ongoing monitoring to determine effectiveness. There is an important 

distinction between the monitoring required to assess effectiveness of mitigation, and research or monitoring completed in 

lieu of on-the-ground mitigation. We do not support research funding as a substitute for compensatory habitat mitigation 

applied on the ground.

East Both emc0089RM

1724. BLM and FS should put in place a "net conservation benefit" requirement for the mitigation of impacts to resources and 

values. BLM should ensure that any loss of resources or values on a development site is compensated with the addition and 

protection of equivalent or better resources and values offsite with appropriate assurances that conservation values will be

maintained for at least as long as project impacts persist. BLM and FS should also make a determination about the value of the 

habitat to be impacted and adopt direction for mitigation requirements for the specific habitat types impacted. For example, 

for high quality habitat which is relatively scarce or becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion section 28, BLM

policy should ensure a net gain of in-kind habitat value. Additions of lands and resources should exceed the value of any 

resources lost. Additions could be gained through restoration and research efforts to improve the quality and quantity of 

equivalent resources and values off-site. Mitigation for impacts to water resources could be addressed by purchase and 

retirement of water rights to offset groundwater pumping by the project.

East Both emc0089RM

1725. Recommendations: Greater sage-grouse efforts and mitigation strategies should be designed and continuously monitored to 

ensure that they are effective and generate net benefits. Mitigation requirements should emphasize avoidance and 

minimization of impacts. Actions to offset unavoidable impacts should generate net conservation benefits for sage grouse

populations and habitats consistent with the conservation purposes and principles of the National Sage-grouse Planning 

Strategy.

East Both emc0089RM

1726. 12. THE AGENCIES SHOULD CONSIDER MITIGATION STRATEGIES ACROSS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES BLM 

and FS policies are critical but they cannot sustain or enhance sage-grouse populations by themselves. Greater sage-grouse 

conservation efforts and habitat protection must extend across jurisdictional boundaries. At the federal level, sage-grouse 

habitat and populations occur on FS lands, generally located adjacent to BLM habitat and/or private land. The USFWS

responsibilities include management of National Wildlife Refuges and ensuring ESA compliance. State fish and game 

agencies are already developing policies to conserve remaining habitat, protect existing populations, obtain crucial scientific 

information, and develop maps to inform protective policies. WGFD has exhibited leadership in the development of 

Wyoming’s Core Areas Strategy and associated sage-grouse distribution and habitat maps. State wildlife areas will play an 

important role in sage-grouse conservation, and management of these areas must be integrated with policies on adjacent 

federal or private lands.

East Both emc0089RM

1727. Overall, maintaining migration corridors and habitat connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries (including state lines) will 

play an essential role in successful conservation strategies. Care must be taken to ensure that each proposed ROW project 

is informed by adequate site-specific impacts analysis including cumulative impacts of multiple lines and current information

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-357

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

on habitat and other ecological values.

1728. The NTT report recognizes that BLM is committing "to a new paradigm in managing the sagebrush landscape." NTT at 6. The 

report further recognizes that: [The] new paradigm will require collaborative conservation efforts among private, state,

tribal, and other federal partners to conserve sage-grouse. Land uses, habitat treatments, and anthropogenic disturbances 

will need to be managed below thresholds necessary to conserve not only local sage-grouse populations, but sagebrush 

communities and landscapes as well. The NTT also observed that "development on private lands, which is not subject to 

mitigation, will focus greater needs for conservation of sage-grouse and sagebrush on public lands." Report at 12. The point 

is well taken that the remaining habitat on federal lands must be prioritized for protection because we have less control over 

management decisions on private holdings.

East Both emc0089RM

1729. We believe that federal agencies should consider three viable options for furthering habitat conservation efforts on private 

lands. First, the agencies’ approach can be integrated with private land conservation benefits provided by the National

Resource Conservation Service’s Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI): BLM’s new policy facilitates closer integration of sage grouse 

conservation between these two Federal Agencies. The sage-grouse Breeding Bird Density maps, produced by BLM, provide 

NRCS with an efficient mechanism for targeting Farm Bill resources to benefit birds through the USDA’s Sage Grouse 

Initiative (SGI). Although most of the Sage Grouse Initiative funds are invested on private lands, they can also be used to

implement conservation measures on BLM’s public grazing lands. Match requirements that can be paid by 

Non-Governmental Organizations, provide yet another innovative opportunity to expand partnerships regardless of 

ownership. Working proactively, regardless of administrative boundaries, will result in conservation to benefit sage-grouse

across their range.29

East Both emc0089RM

1730. We believe that federal agencies should consider three viable options for furthering habitat conservation efforts on private 

lands. First, the agencies’ approach can be integrated with private land conservation benefits provided by the National 

Resource Conservation Service’s Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI): Second, biodiversity offsets for greater sage-grouse are 

discussed in Doherty et al. (2010b): "The simplest and most cost effective first step in conservation is to halt the large-scale 

actions that further reduce or eliminate the largest populations in the best remaining landscapes." BLM and FS should 

consider using the approach outlined in this paper to develop methods to forecast population losses that will result from 

unavoidable development of valid existing rights, and to ensure that offsite mitigation permanently reduces similar risks to 

other sage-grouse populations of equal size. The analyses and recommendations in this paper should be carefully considered

when designing conservation strategies and taking account of cross-jurisdictional issues.

East Both emc0089RM

1731. We believe that federal agencies should consider three viable options for furthering habitat conservation efforts on private 

lands. First, the agencies’ approach can be integrated with private land conservation benefits provided by the National 

Resource Conservation Service’s Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI): Third, another potential resource to consider when 

developing a collaborative approach to conservation across boundaries is the Framework for Mitigation of Impacts from 

Infrastructure on Sage-grouse and Their Habitats, developed by the Sage-Grouse Mitigation Subcommittee of the Idaho 

Sage-Grouse State Advisory Committee. The Idaho Mitigation Framework (December 6, 2010) is labeled a "Discussion 

Paper Final Draft" but has not yet been adopted. This draft framework, the result of a stakeholder process, may offer some 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-358 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

guidance and helpful concepts for habitat conservation on non-federal lands, thereby complementing conservation strategies 

on federal lands. According to the summary: [T]the Mitigation Framework would serve as a science-based "mitigation 

module" that project developers and government regulators could use to achieve compensatory mitigation objectives called 

for in project plans and permits. While compensatory mitigation may help offset certain impacts arising from infrastructure 

projects, mitigation should not be considered a substitute for first avoiding and then minimizing impacts. In addition, it is 

important to recognize that federal and state regulatory or land-management agencies, and county or local governments may 

also require additional stipulations, conditions of approval or other requirements as well as on-site mitigation, in accordance

with applicable law, regulation or policy. Discussion Paper Final Draft at 1.

1732. Regarding the potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to habitat and populations, BLM and FS must strive to 

fully consider all current and reasonably foreseeable impacts. Landscape-scale planning across jurisdictional and other 

boundaries will be needed to achieve sage-grouse conservation goals. The agencies’ analysis should be informed by the 

recent federal court ruling regarding BLM’s Pinedale RMP and the greater sage-grouse. Western Watersheds Project v. 

Salazar, Case No. 4:08-CV-516-BLW, 2012 WL 32714 (D. Idaho 2011). This decision remanded the Pinedale RMP for 

violations of NEPA and FLPMA regarding analysis of energy development and other activities. The decision is a wake-up call 

that past management measures have failed to stem negative trends for the sage-grouse and its habitat, and that strong

mandatory policies based on the best available science are needed.

East Both emc0089RM

1733. Recommendations: Greater sage-grouse conservation efforts and habitat protection must extend across jurisdictional 

boundaries, and include consideration of all stakeholders (including private landowners).

East Both emc0089RM

1734. 13. THE AGENCIES SHOULD CONSIDER INCORPORATING PROTECTIVE MEASURES THAT ARE ALREADY BEING 

EVALUATED OR IMPLEMENTED IN OTHER RMPS Numerous land use plans within the eastern/Rocky Mountain range 

are currently being revised. Several of these plans are worth referencing for their important greater sage-grouse protective

measures. Two of these, Wyoming’s Lander Field Office and Colorado’s Kremmling Field Office, are described here in detail.

East Both emc0089RM

1735. i. Lander, WY RMP We applaud the statement within the Draft EIS: "management actions that conserve, protect, and

maintain habitat for greater sage-grouse are a priority in this (core) area" (DEIS at 865).

East Both emc0089RM

1736. i. Lander, WY RMP Record #4095, for Alternative D, prohibits surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities from March 

1 to July 15. This change from March 15 is beneficial to sage-grouse.

East Both emc0089RM

1737. i. Lander, WY RMP Reclamation should be mandatory and managers must recognize that methods for achieving success 

vary by region and are site-specific. Reclamation efforts should be monitored and results maintained in a single database to 

improve our understanding about effectiveness of such efforts. In addition, a process should be established to identify and 

address failed reclamation projects. Successful reclamation of surface disturbance is necessary to establish connectivity 

within previously fragmented habitats and to achieve and maintain ecosystem function (DEIS at 864).

East Both emc0089RM

1738. ii. Kremmling, CO RMP In the Draft RMP for the Kremmling (CO) Field Office31, Alternative C would commit the BLM to: 

...proactively identify, protect, and improve wildlife habitat, including treatments for the benefit of sagebrush-dependent 

species, especially in areas identified as historical habitats. Alternative C would include establishing reference areas that 

would be used as control groups for evaluating management activities in sagebrush habitat. In sage-grouse core areas within 

the Planning Area, BLM-managed public lands would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Draft RMP32 at 2-24. Alternative B 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-359

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

(preferred alternative) would prohibit surface occupancy or use in core habitat. Draft RMP at 2-55 – 2-56. Alternative C 

would prohibit oil and gas leasing in core sage-grouse habitat. Draft RMP at 2-55. Alternative C would also limit surface 

disturbance in core habitat to one percent at any one time, while Alternative B would limit surface disturbance to three 

percent at any one time. Draft RMP at 2-74.

1739. Recommendations: The Lander (WY) and Kremmling (CO) Field Offices’ Draft RMPs contain important conservation 

measures that should be applied, where appropriate, to other land use plans, specifically, Alternatives B and D in Wyoming 

and Alternatives B and C in Colorado. Many of these management prescriptions recognize the relative value of other

resources while contributing to the conservation of greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.

East Both emc0089RM

1740. 14. BLM SHOULD DESIGNATE AND/OR PROVIDE GUIDELINES FOR WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ZONES THAT 

WILL PROTECT SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT On December 29, 2011, the BLM issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Regarding a Competitive Process for Leasing Public Lands for Solar and Wind Energy Development 76 Fed. Reg. 

81906. The notice describes one of the main goals as “establish[ing] competitive bidding procedures for lands within 

designated solar and wind energy development leasing areas.” Notably, while BLM is in the process of designating solar 

energy zones in a Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS (PEIS), the BLM has not designated or undertaken a process 

to designate specific leasing areas for wind energy development. While the BLM completed a PEIS for wind energy 

development in 2005, the PEIS only generally identified lands available for wind energy rights-of-way. Much additional 

research on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife has occurred since that time. The solar energy zones that the BLM will 

designate in the Solar PEIS are those places that the agency believes best suited to utility scale development, based on quality 

of solar resources, low conflict with other values, and proximity to transmission. Similarly, the BLM now has data on the 

quality of wind resources (compiled during the preparation of the Wind PEIS), potential conflicts with other resources and 

values, and the availability of transmission (also evaluated during the Solar PEIS, as well as transmission-specific planning 

efforts), which the agency can use to make similar designations of wind energy zones for leasing. In addition to the benefits 

of facilitating renewable energy development in areas with high solar and wind resources and few conflicts with natural and 

cultural resources, designation of zones can also aid in planning for future transmission development by identifying areas to 

be prioritized for access when planning new lines. BLM’s 2012 Budget Justification included a $3,000,000 increase for the 

Renewable Energy Management to conduct studies and prepare regional planning studies and environmental reviews of 

potential wind energy zones, specifically in Nevada and Oregon. This is in addition to wind studies underway in New Mexico, 

California, and Wyoming and will support an update to the Wind Programmatic EIS completed in 2005. We recognize, 

however, that while designating renewable energy zones can facilitate wind energy development nationwide, individual wind

farms and wind turbines must be sited appropriately after careful consideration and evaluation of the potential site-specific 

impacts on wildlife and other resources.

East Both emc0089RM

1741. 15. THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE FOREST SERVICE IN SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION The Forest Service has an 

important role in sage-grouse conservation and recovery. The agency manages 8 percent of current sage-grouse habitat, or 

12.8 million acres (75 Fed. Reg.13979). There are 32 national forests and grasslands across the range of sage-grouse, and 

twenty-six of them contain moderately to highly important seasonal habitat for the species (USFS 2008, Appendix 2, Table 

2; 75 Fed. Reg.13979).33 The current planning process will only affect the following FS Land Use Plans: Rocky Mountain 

East USFS emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-360 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Region: • Routt National Forest, CO • Ashley National Forest, UT • Manti-LaSal National Forest, UT • Uintah National 

Forest, UT • Thunder Basin National Grassland, WY • Bridger-Teton National Forest, WY • Medicine Bow National Forest, 

WY Great Basin Region: • Boise National Forest, ID • Salmon National Forest, ID • Challis National Forest, ID • Targhee 

National Forest, ID • Curlew National Grassland, ID • Caribou National Forest, ID • Sawtooth National Forest, ID •

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, MT • Humboldt National Forest, NV • Toiyabe National Forest, NV • Dixie 

National Forest, UT • Fishlake National Forest, UT The planning process should include all FS units with sage-grouse 

habitat. As the USFWS noted in its "warranted, but precluded" determination, although the sage-grouse is designated a 

Forest Service "sensitive species" across its range, that status provides various levels of protection depending on the forest 

plan and/or project plan and other local factors. Fourteen national forests identify sage-grouse as a "management indicator 

species," but 16 of the 32 forests and grasslands with sage-grouse habitat have not developed any specific conservation 

measures for sage-grouse (75 Fed. Reg. 13979). Failure to include all affected USFS units in the planning process could hinder 

conservation and recovery of the species, particularly at the periphery of its range. (See Exhibit 4)

1742. Recommendations: The FS should consider the following three mechanisms, in no order of priority, to provide adequate 

regulatory mechanisms in Land Management Plans to conserve greater sage-grouse: 1) designating Research Natural Areas 

in areas with high priority greater sage-grouse habitat and intact sagebrush ecosystems (see section 8 of these comments); 

2) developing and applying a new management prescription focused on conservation of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush 

ecosystems, which implements the National Technical Team recommendations as minimum standards; and 3) developing 

and applying new forest-wide standards that implement the recommendations of BLM’s National Technical Team as 

minimum standards for protecting and recovering habitat for the species. In addition, the agency must help protect 

sage-grouse populations by carefully managing activities and projects on national forest lands that are adjacent to lands with 

occupied sage grouse habitat in other ownerships, using any or all of the above mechanisms, as appropriate for site-specific 

areas.

East USFS emc0089RM

1743. As implied by the initiation of this planning process, persistence of greater sage-grouse populations depend on conservation 

of large interconnected expanses of sagebrush habitat (Connelly et al. 2011b). Although cooperation among many federal 

and state agencies and private land owners will be necessary to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat, the federal 

government and federal public lands are key to conserving greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. Federal and agencies 

manage more than 70 percent of remaining sagebrush steppe habitat, yet very little of these lands has been protected. Knick 

estimates that less than 1 percent of sage-grouse current range is within wilderness or other protected areas (Knick, 2011).

Given the importance of public lands to sage-grouse conservation; the sensitivity of these lands to disturbance, longer 

recovery periods and variable response to restoration; and their susceptibility to invasion by exotic plants (Knick, 2011) uses 

that negatively affect these lands should be restricted or eliminated in key habitat areas to conserve sage-grouse habitat. If 

sage-grouse are to persist outside of small, relic populations, the agencies must implement stronger management 

prescriptions for land uses and related effects that harm sagebrush habitat, including, but not limited to: extirpation or 

conversion of sagebrush; oil, natural gas, and coal extraction; wind energy; fencing for livestock management; off-highway 

vehicle use; and prescribed burns. As noted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") in its "12-Month Findings for 

Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse", none of the state or federal regulations, plans, and strategies, alone or in 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-361

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

aggregate, will adequately prevent the continued decline of sage-grouse (70 FR 2244).

1744. A. The EISs Must Comply with the National Environmental Policy Act Enacted upon "recognizing the profound impact of 

man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment," the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) seeks to "promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4331; id. § 4321. 

NEPA implements its environmental protection objectives by requiring federal agencies to analyze the environmental 

impacts of a particular action before committing resources to the project. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). "By focusing both agency 

and public attention on the environmental effects of those proposed actions, NEPA facilitates informed decision-making by 

agencies and allows the political process to check those decisions." New Mexico v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 565 F.3d 683, 703 

(10th Cir. 2009). Additionally, "NEPA imposes procedural requirements designed to force agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at 

environmental consequences." Earth Island Institute v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the 

regulations also require that an EIS discuss and fully analyze all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action 

and all alternatives that undergo detailed study. Id. § 1502.16.

East Both emc0167RM

1745. B. The EISs Must Comply with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act Through guidelines of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management has an obligation to protect and manage greater 

sage-grouse habitat. FLPMA mandates that BLM public lands shall be managed "for multiple use and sustained yield," and to 

prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation" of public lands. 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) & (b). FLPMA directs that "the public lands 

be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and 

atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values . . . ." Id. § 1701(a)(8). And "where appropriate," BLM "will preserve 

and protect certain public lands in their natural condition." Id. Greater sage grouse conservation clearly qualifies as an 

"historical, ecological and environmental" value. Pursuant to this statutory authority, under Section 6840 of BLM’s Manual, 

BLM has adopted a Special Status Species Policy which mandates that the BLM "shall ensure that actions authorized, funded 

or carried out by the BLM do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed." BLM Manual 6841.06C. This 

provision highlights the BLM’s responsibility to prevent proposed actions from adversely impacting existing sage-grouse 

populations and habitat. The provision also requires that new EIS’s consider a full range of off-site mitigation measures, 

including sage-grouse habitat restoration and compensated grazing retirement. Under the authority of the Special Status 

Species Policy, BLM State Directors may designate "sensitive" species that are native species of concern under the 

circumstances that the species "could become endangered or extirpated from a state, or within a significant portion of its 

distribution in the foreseeable future"; are "under status review" by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; or are "undergoing 

significant current or predicted downwards trends in population or density. . . ." BLM Manual 6840.06.E. Greater sage-grouse 

are designated as a "sensitive" species by Wyoming BLM; sage grouse have also been determined by the FWS to be a 

"candidate" species that "warrants" listing under the Endangered Species Act. The sage grouse EIS must fully comply with the 

sensitive species policy and ensure that BLM actions do not adversely affect sage grouse.

East Both emc0167RM

1746. The emphasis of protecting a diversity of plant and animal communities is clearly a primary objective of the NFMA process 

and efforts to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat should be a high priority at this point in time. Similarly, the regulations 

also call for special protections for threatened and endangered species and their habitat. Id. § 219.19(a)(7); see also id. §

219.27(a)(8) (management prescriptions shall "[i]nclude measures for preventing the destruction or adverse modification of 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-362 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

critical habitat for threatened and endangered species"). All regulations must be thoroughly considered for sage grouse 

management as this EIS process moves forward.

1747. While the "precluded" status was determined by higher priority species needing attention and limited funding availability to 

pursue an immediate listing action, a litigation settlement requires that a listing decision be made by the FWS no later than 

September 2015. Because the greater sage grouse is a species that has been proposed for listing--and in fact is a candidate 

species for which listing is warranted--all federal agencies must confer with the Secretary on any agency action which is likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of greater sage grouse or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical

habitat proposed to be designated for greater sage grouse. 16 U.S.C.A. § 1536(a)(4).

East Both emc0167RM

1748. In order to meet its obligation to conserve greater sage-grouse, the BLM and Forest Service must integrate and apply the 

scientific opinion of the NTT in land use planning range-wide. To reach the overall objective for sage grouse conservation, 

the NTT outlined several sub-objectives that should be met in priority habitat. Page 7 lists these objectives, which seek to:

• Designate priority sage‐grouse habitats for management zones1 across the current geographic range of sage‐grouse that 

are large enough to stabilize populations in the short term and enhance populations over the long term • Maintain or 

increase current populations and manage or restore priority areas so that at least 70 percent of the land cover provides 

adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage‐grouse needs • Develop quantifiable habitat and population objectives • Develop a 

monitoring and adaptive management strategy to record outcome of objectives, and allow for revisions to management 

approaches if outcomes are not reached • Manage priority sage‐grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances2 cover less than 3 percent of the total sage‐grouse habitat regardless of ownership • Prohibit further 

anthropogenic disturbances in priority habitats where the 3 percent disturbance threshold is already exceeded from any 

source

East Both emc0167RM

1749. IV. THREATS AND MITIGATIONS In the December 2011 Notice of Intent, the BLM identified the following preliminary 

issues relating to the conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat that will influence the scope of the 

environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EISs/Supplemental EISs (76 FR 77008)

: • Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Management • Fluid Minerals • Coal Mining • Hard Rock Mining • Mineral Materials •

Rights-of-Way (including transmission) • Renewable Energy Development • Fire • Invasive Species • Grazing • Off Highway 

Vehicle Management and Recreation Missing from this list, and suggested for inclusion, are: pinyon-juniper encroachment, 

infrastructure related to energy development and urbanization, fencing, roads and railroads, power lines, and climate change.

An expert panel convened by the FWS ranked threats to the species in the following order: invasive species, infrastructure 

related to energy (natural gas and oil) development and urbanization, wildfire, agriculture, grazing, energy development, 

urbanization, strip/coal mining, weather, and pinyon-juniper encroachment (70 FR 2267). However, some threats are more 

significant in the eastern region than the west. The expert panel identified energy development as the most significant 

extinction risk to the greater sage-grouse in the eastern portion of its range: Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. The rapidity 

of development and persistent demand for petroleum products were primary concerns. Some members of the panel also 

identified the effects of infrastructure, particularly related to energy development and urbanization, as greater concerns in

the eastern part of the species’ range. Disease, predation, hard-rock mining, hunting and environmental contaminants were 

not identified as primary threats to sage-grouse, according to the panel (70 FR 2267). Federal agencies must fully analyze 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-363

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

these threats, develop conservation and mitigation measures, and apply them range wide to conserve and recover 

sage-grouse. As the FWS indicated in the "12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered", the BLM and Forest Service RMPs and LRMPs are mechanisms through which 

adequate protections for greater sage-grouse could be implemented, however "the extent to which appropriate measures to 

conserve sage-grouse have been incorporated into those planning documents, or are being implemented, varies across the 

range. We conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species. The absence of adequate 

regulatory mechanisms is a significant threat to the species, now and in the foreseeable future." (70 FR 2267).

1750. A. All RMPs and Forest Plans Must Include Consistent, Enforceable Standards One of the overarching issues with current 

agency policies is that they vary from forest to forest and from one RMP to another. Thus, sage-grouse might be better 

protected during the spring, but once they move to their wintering habitat to a different land management area, protection 

may be weakened or lost. This approach of variable management is inadequate to ensure the conservation and persistence 

of sage-grouse on public lands. Rather, all Forest Plans and RMPs should contain consistent conservation standards that 

direct activities within priority sage-grouse habitat, within currently occupied sage-grouse habitat, and within habitat capable 

of supporting sage-grouse. These directives must not only be consistent across landscapes, but they must include mandatory, 

binding, enforceable standards. Guidance and policies that are discretionary or unenforceable have led to the current dire 

situation for the sage-grouse, and thus do not constitute adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the species. Similarly, 

implementing exceptions for otherwise mandatory standards can destroy the binding and non-discretionary nature of the 

directive, thus leading to inconsistent management and inadequate regulatory mechanism. Such weak management will fail to 

protect sage-grouse and will likely lead to the listing of the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act. In short, the BLM 

and Forest Service must include enforceable, binding standards that are consistent in all RMPs and Forest Plans. These 

standards must direct what activities can be undertaken in sage-grouse habitat, how and when those activities can be 

undertaken in relation to sage-grouse habitat, including leks, nesting grounds, brood rearing habitat, and wintering habitat, 

and a clear statement that these standards are not guidelines that are suggestive in nature, but rather are requirements that

are mandatory in nature. The agencies must not formulate exceptions or waivers for any activity that may harm sage-grouse 

or sage-grouse habitat, for doing so leads to inconsistent management and will lead to listing of the sage-grouse, at which 

time all activities that harm sage-grouse will be forced to cease.

East Both emc0167RM

1751. All standards and directives implemented in these RMPs and Forest Plans must be based upon the best available science 

concerning sage-grouse, sage-grouse habitat, and how activities on public lands may impact sage-grouse and their habitat. Of 

relevance, NEPA requires that analysis of impacts must be "of high quality" and contain "[a]ccurate scientific analysis" (40 

C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)). Likewise, FLPMA requires BLM to use an integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic and 

other sciences in developing RMPs that will direct land management activities (43 U.S.C. § 1712©(2)). In finding that listing for 

sage-grouse is warranted under the ESA, the FWS noted its concern with the non-scientific nature of some of the current 

policies guiding activities in sage-grouse habitat. Because of the non-scientific nature of many of these policies and guidelines, 

it was not surprising that many of these guidelines proved insufficient to truly protect sage-grouse and their habitat. The 

agencies must gather the most current science on the issue and review it thoroughly before implementing standards. 

Throughout the process, as other relevant information becomes available, BLM and the Forest Service must also consult all 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-364 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

new data to ensure that the best available science is used to formulate and amend appropriate and protective standards to 

support sage-grouse persistence.

1752. In concert with these identification efforts, the agencies must provide the public with high-quality user-friendly maps. These 

maps should be included within each RMP and Forest Plan, and should document priority sage-grouse habitat, currently 

occupied sage-grouse habitat, and unoccupied but suitable sage-grouse habitat. Maps should be provided showing occupied 

habitat during each season and stage of a sage-grouse’s life, including lekking areas, nesting habitat, brood rearing habitat, and 

wintering habitat. Areas capable of supporting sage-grouse during any one of these stages should be considered suitable 

habitat, even if unoccupied. Each RMP and Forest Plan should additionally include a map showing historic versus current 

range of the species.

East Both emc0167RM

1753. F. The BLM and Forest Service Should Manage Sage-Grouse Conservation as the Top Priority in Priority Sage-grouse Habitat 

To ensure the persistence of sage-grouse across the West, the BLM and Forest Service must commit to managing 

sage-grouse as the top priority in priority sage-grouse habitat. To this end, conservation of sage-grouse in these areas must 

be elevated among other land use management activities, and the agencies should ensure that no project or activity go 

forward in a way that could potentially harm sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat. The NTT suggests managing priority areas 

so that at least 70 percent of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat.5 As it is evident that many of the activities 

described above can seriously harm sage-grouse populations, the agencies should prohibit some of these most damaging 

activities in priority sage-grouse habitats and approach management of other threats in a manner that is consistent with 

sage-grouse and habitat protection. The agencies should not allow any new oil, gas, coal, or other mineral leases in priority 

sage-grouse habitats that are currently unleased. As the Technical Team Report states, "[t]here is strong evidence from the 

literature to support that surface-disturbing energy or mineral development within priority sage-grouse habitats is not 

consistent with a goal to maintain or increase populations or distribution."6 As described above, energy development is one 

of the most significant factors negatively impact sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat today. Energy development generally 

includes or leads to direct conversion of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, increased human presence, increased threat of 

predators, an increase in noise, pollutants, and potential harm to water resources. Additionally, cumulative impacts from 

energy development in connection with other activities, including the infrastructure associated with the development, create 

threats to sage-grouse that are incalculable. See infra Sections III.A & D for more information on the threats associated with 

energy development and mining. As previously noted, the NTT Report notes that No Surface Occupancy buffers around leks 

will be ineffective in protecting sage grouse: Past BLM conservation measures have focused on 0.25 mile No Surface 

Occupancy (NSO) buffers around leks, and timing stipulations applied to 0.6 mile buffers around leks to protect both 

breeding and nesting activities. Given impacts of large scale disturbances described above that occur across seasons and 

impact all demographic rates, applying NSO or other buffers around leks at any distance is unlikely to be effective. Even if this 

approach were to be continued, it should be noted that protecting even 75 to >80% of nesting hens would require a 4-mile 

radius buffer . . . . Even a 4-mile NSO buffer would not be large enough to offset all the impacts reviewed above. A 4-mile 

NSO likely would not be practical given most leases are not large enough to accommodate a buffer of this size, and lek 

spacing within priority habitats is such that lek-based buffers may overlap and preclude all development.7 Buffers will not be 

effective enough to offset impacts and buffers of a substantial size would preclude development anyway. Furthermore, timing 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-365

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

restrictions are ineffective because they do not prevent impacts of infrastructure at other times of year or during seasonal 

habitats that are crucial for population persistence.8 Thus, based on the science, the NTT Report "recommend[s] excluding 

mineral development and other large scale disturbances from priority habitats where possible, and where it is not limit 

disturbance as much as possible."9 It concludes: [W]e believe the conservation strategy most likely to meet the objectives of 

maintaining or increasing sage-grouse distribution and abundance is to exclude energy development and other large scale 

disturbances from priority habitats, and where valid existing rights exist, minimize those impacts by keeping disturbances to 

1 per section with direct surface disturbance impacts held to 3% of the area or less.10 We support this recommendation and 

note that the only locations where prohibiting development may not be possible are where valid existing rights remain. In 

areas where 3 percent impact is permitted, we advise the BLM to define the "area" so that it is small enough for this to make

an appreciable impact on protection of sage-grouse and habitat.

1754. VRLP shares the concerns of many of the other public land user groups and the state and local governments. VRLP urges 

BLM to take a fresh start and to further revise or cancel Instruction Memoranda 2012-43 and 2012-44. The following

comments explain the basis for VRLP’s concerns. The comments are supplemented with analysis done by Wayne Burkhardt, 

Ph.D., (Ex. 1) and comments Dr. Burkhardt prepared in 2004 Comment in regard to the FWS 90-day Finding for Petitions to 

List the Greater Sage Grouse as Threatened or Endangered for Owyhee Cattlemen Association (July 28, 2004), (Ex. 1A). Dr. 

Burkhardt designed the current deferred rotation system and rangealnd monitoring program followed by VRLP, advised 

VRLP on appropriate management and helps conduct the annual monitoring program.

East Both emc0155RM

1755. The current conservation strategies adopted by BLM fail to account for the gaps in the science, the data deficiencies, and 

questions regarding the mathematical accuracy of both the estimates of historic populations and current populations of sage 

grouse. Any future changes need to be sufficiently flexible to adjust for better data and analysis, especially given the significant 

issues regarding which land uses affect sage grouse populations and other factors affecting the sage grouse populations that 

are omitted entirely from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

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

Endangered, 75 Fed. Reg. 13910 (2010). The BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2012-44 and Attachment 1, "A Report on

National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" (Dec. 21, 2011) (Technical Team Report) do not address these 

issues and the land use planning process must;

East Both emc0155RM

1756. BLM must coordinate with local governments on all land decisions, 43 U.S.C. §1712(a) and must ensure to the extent 

practicable that any land use plans do not contradict those of local governments. Id. at §1712(c)(9). VRLP calls on BLM to 

begin this coordination. There are a number of state and local government sage grouse management initiatives. For example, 

Moffat County, Colorado, developed a sage grouse management plan for state, private and federal lands. Utah and its local 

governments were in the forefront of habitat improvements and research. These efforts are ignored in IM-44, the Technical

Team Report and the NOI. BLM is required by law to closely coordinate with state and local government agencies to ensure 

that the federal actions do not conflict. Notably, BLM failed to coordinate in the development of IM-2012-43, 2012-44, or the 

Attachments, including "A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" (Dec. 21, 2011) (Technical

Team Report). This omission is significant because many state and local governments have been very active in improving sage 

grouse habitat and have more direct hands on experience than many of the team members. Coordination would have 

East Both emc0155RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-366 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

improved the conservation measures, avoided errors, and restored public faith in the process. As it stands, the report 

appears to be a purely political exercise intended to disrupt the local economies and social structures in the Rocky Mountain 

and Great Basin states. For example, Utah local governments pioneered wildlife habitat work in the late 1990s, funded it and 

promoted habitat improvement projects. The Wyoming conservation districts have been equally active. And yet the IM and 

Technical Team Report ignored the work of these local agencies notwithstanding FLPMA's mandate to coordinate.

1757. FLPMA requires BLM to manage the public lands in accordance with the land use plans that have been properly adopted. 43 

U.S.C. §1732(a). Much of IM 2012-44 and the Technical Team Report contradict the lawfully adopted RMPs. Implementation 

of an IM to amend an RMP is unlawful. Given both the lack of coordination and opportunity for public comment, and the 

scientific controversies, adoption of the IMs without following FLPMA procedures is flawed from the outset. Even interim 

implementation of the IM will have significant and adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts.

East Both emc0155RM

1758. After several scandals regarding government research, Congress adopted the Information Quality Act to impose objective 

data based criteria on government decisions and reports. Pub.L. 106-554, §515, 114 Stat. 2673A-125, 2673A-153, 

2673A-154 (2001). The OMB Guidelines require that data be peer reviewed. OMB Office of the President, Final Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (2004), at 4. The peer reviewers must be selected primarily based on necessary technical 

expertise, must disclose prior technical/policy positions taken on the issues at hand, must disclose personal and institutional 

funding, and the peer review must be conducted in an open and rigorous manner. OMB Exec. Office of the President, 

Guidelines for ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal 

Agencies (2002), at 3-4; U.S. Department of the Interior, Information Quality Guidelines Pursuant to Section 515 of the 

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (2002), at pp. 2-3, 8-10. As documented in the 

analysis done by CESAR, the USFWS 12-Month finding failed to meet Information Quality Act criteria. CESAR at pp. 3-7 

(documenting how USFWS relied heavily on a publication prepared by the same researchers and funded by USFWS but 

these factors were never disclosed). There was no disclosure of funding, any review was of the same group reviewing each 

other's work, and there were documented data deficiencies in the USFWS work. BLM has carried forward these deficiencies 

in IM 2012-44 and the Technical Team Report. Id. In addition, USFWS and Technical Team Report omit other research that 

contradicts the conclusions. BLM has a legal obligation to conform to the IQA even if USFWS did not. This will require

consideration of the contrary data and research, actual assessment of the data deficiencies and mathematical errors. If the 

analysis cannot be duplicated or checked, then it should be discarded or accorded little or no weight. In 2004 and again in 

2010, USFWS received substantial documentation that its estimates of historic sage grouse population estimates were in 

error. Ex. 1A pp. 1-4. USFWS never acknowledged the data contradicting the premise that sage grouse were plentiful 

throughout the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin states. As explained in the CESAR analysis, the USFWS work does not 

conform to information quality standards and should be re-evaluated in light of these and other comments.

East Both emc0155RM

1759. VRLP agrees that monitoring is an important strategy. East Both emc0155RM

1760. As the agencies move forward in planning, we feel two things are clear: 1) past efforts have failed to sufficiently conserve 

sage-grouse and their habitat, resulting in the 2010 finding that listing the Greater Sage-Grouse is “warranted but precluded”; 

and 2) there is an urgent need to develop and implement substantive conservation measures between now and 2015, when 

GB Both emc0355GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-367

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will reconsider the status of the bird.

1761. Cooperate with other agencies: BLM and FS should fully engage and consult with state agencies and the USFWS throughout 

the EIS process.

GB Both emc0355GB

1762. Use Sound Science: Employ science-based decision making and use the latest scientific sources including, but not limited to, 

the 2010 USFWS 12-month findings, the Studies in Avian Biology sage-grouse monograph, and the National Technical 

Team’s report.

GB Both emc0355GB

1763. Generate Reasonable Alternatives: Create action alternatives in EIS that advance sage-grouse conservation and establish a 

comprehensive regulatory framework to provide the best opportunity to prevent the need to list the greater sage-grouse 

under the ESA. Alternatives must include adequate baseline protections including the following: 1) directing development 

toward areas with low conflicts with sage-grouse conservation, 2) full, permanent protections for priority contiguous 

habitat, 3) stringent protections or effective mitigation for other key habitat if some development might be allowed, 4) 

designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and assurances that they will be managed appropriately and 5) 

baseline protections for priority and general habitat.

GB Both emc0355GB

1764. Employ Mapping: BLM should make the Priority and General Habitat maps, and the procedures used to delineate habitat 

boundaries, available on a central website. BLM and FS should also make available the data, maps, and decision making 

processes used to generate other designated protection areas in the EIS’s.

GB Both emc0355GB

1765. Create Mitigation Requirements: BLM and FS should apply habitat mitigation actions in descending order of preference: 

avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction, and compensation. The goal should be a net benefit to sage-grouse. When

compensation is used for mitigation, BLM and FS should ensure that compensation is spent on effective mitigation measures, 

applied on the landscape scale, to sage-grouse habitat that is similar or greater in value than the lost habitat services. Ongoing

stewardship, monitoring, and adaptive management will be necessary to ensure that compensatory mitigation is effective.

GB Both emc0355GB

1766. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) mandates that BLM public lands shall be managed “for 

multiple use and sustained yield,” and to prevent “unnecessary or undue degradation” of public lands. See 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a) 

& (b). Pursuant to these and other statutory authorities, BLM has adopted a Special Status Species Policy, Section 6840 of 

BLM’s Manual, with which BLM must comply in planning efforts. The Special Status Species Policy mandates that BLM “shall 

ensure that actions authorized, funded or carried out by BLM do not contribute to the need for the species to become 

listed.” See BLM Manual 6841.06C. To maintain sustainable sage-grouse populations across the broader landscape, BLM has

committed to implementing an appropriate combination of protective actions in “priority habitat.” Generally speaking, 

“priority habitat” is the habitat of highest conservation value relative to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations 

range-wide. Priority habitat will be areas of high quality habitat supporting important sage-grouse populations, including 

those populations that are vulnerable to localized extirpation but necessary to maintain range-wide connectivity and genetic 

diversity. See IM 2010-071.

GB Both emc0355GB

1767. The Forest Service (FS) has an important role in sage-grouse conservation and recovery. The agency manages 8 percent of 

current sage-grouse habitat, or 12.8 million acres (75 Fed. Reg. 13979). There are 32 national forests and grasslands across 

the range of sage-grouse, and twenty-six of them contain moderately to highly important seasonal habitat for the species

GB USFS emc0355GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-368 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

(USFS 2008, Appendix 2, Table 2; 75 Fed. Reg. 13979).3 In the Great Basin Region, the current planning process will affect 

FS Land Use Plans in Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada.4 The planning process should include all FS units with sage-grouse 

habitat. As the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted in its “warranted, but precluded” determination, although the sagegrouse

is designated a Forest Service “sensitive species” across its range, that status provides various levels of protection depending 

on the forest plan and/or project plan and other local factors. Fourteen national forests identify sage-grouse as a 

"management indicator species," but 16 of the 32 forests and grasslands with sage-grouse habitat have not developed any

specific conservation measures for sage-grouse (75 Fed. Reg. 13979). Failure to include all affected USFS units in the planning 

process could hinder conservation and recovery of the species, particularly at the periphery of its range.

1768. The objectives outlined by the NTT provide BLM a blueprint for conservation. However, when it comes to implementing 

conservation goals and objectives, BLM will be responsible for creating the mechanisms and assessing the total areas and 

locations that will be identified as priority and general habitat at the Land Use Plan level. Revisions to Resource Management 

Plans (RMPs) should rely on concrete mechanisms to protect high quality sage-grouse habitat. According to the NTT, “The 

overall objective is to protect priority sage-grouse habitat from anthropogenic disturbances...”6 This objective will only be 

met with unambiguous policy decisions that will preclude large-scale development, such as energy development, in high 

productivity nesting and brooding habitat as well as important transitional habitat including migratory corridors. In addition, 

BLM should not pass up this opportunity to address sage-grouse needs within a broader ecological framework that can also 

accommodate conservation needs for other sagebrush steppe-dependent species. With some consideration and careful 

targeting of other species that depend on the same ecosystem as the sage-grouse, BLM can realize substantial additional 

conservation benefits from this process.

GB Both emc0355GB

1769. The BLM must consider a wide range of reasonable alternatives, embracing the full suite of appropriate management 

prescriptions that focus on the relative values of resources while contributing the greatest toward conservation of the 

greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Such a range would include multiple conservation alternatives that incorporate 

a full range of habitat types and preservation measures while also integrating a broad spectrum of species protection 

measures. We suggest that BLM take a hard look at the possible range of options that could help the agency meet its 

multiple-use mandate because the alternatives section is “the heart of the environmental impact statement” and an agency 

violates NEPA by failing to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives” to the proposed action. 

See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.147 For this EIS, the consideration of a range of more environmentally protective alternatives is also 

consistent with the FLPMA’s requirement that BLM “minimize adverse impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific, 

cultural, and other resources and values (including fish and wildlife habitat) of the public lands involved.” See 43 U.S.C. 

§1732(d)(2)(a)IM 2012-0448 provides direction to BLM for considering conservation measures recommended by the NTT’s 

report. The IM directs BLM to consider and analyze the conservation measures developed by the National Technical Team, 

as appropriate, through the land-use planning process, in all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat. The IM requires that the conservation measures recommended by the NTT be subjected to a hard 

look analysis as part of the planning and NEPA processes. According to the IM: “This means that a reasonable range of 

conservation measures must be considered in the land use planning alternatives. As appropriate, the conservation measures 

must be considered and incorporated into at least one alternative in the land use planning process.” The IM notes that there 

GB Both emc0355GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-369

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

may be some adjustments of these conservation measures in order to address ecological site variability. However, they must 

still be subjected to a hard look analysis. In addition, BLM must ensure that implementation of any of the measures is

consistent with applicable statute and regulation. Where inconsistencies arise, BLM offices are directed to consider the 

conservation measure(s) to the fullest extent consistent with such statute and regulation. Summary: All action alternatives 

must include adequate baseline protections including the following: 1) directing development toward areas with low conflicts 

with sage-grouse conservation, 2) full, permanent protections for priority contiguous habitat, 3) stringent protections or 

effective mitigation for other key habitat if some development might be allowed, 4) designation of Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and assurances that they will be managed appropriately and 5) baseline protections for priority and 

general habitat. All alternatives should advance sage-grouse conservation and establish a comprehensive regulatory 

framework to provide the best opportunity to prevent the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the ESA.

1770. We endorse and refer the BLM and USFS to the “Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative” submitted by conservation groups, 

constructed mostly with recommendations from the NTT—variances from the NTT team are clearly marked.

GB Both emc0355GB

1771. We are strongly supportive of BLM's efforts to implement the National Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy. The 

conservation objectives outlined in the Technical Team's report will require continued cooperation and efforts among state 

and federal agencies in order to refine knowledge of seasonal ranges, connectivity corridors, and general delineation of the 

bird'smovement and habitat use in order to efficiently and effectively apply the appropriate management strategies. Since the 

bird does not recognize political boundaries, it will be necessary that BLM extend a special effort to coordinate management 

actions with other federal and state land management agencies as well as private landowners in order to properly manage the 

bird's landscape scale habitat needs. Summary: In recognition that success will only be possible with cooperation from other

agencies, BLM should fully engage and consult with state agencies and the USFWS throughout the EIS process.

GB Both emc0355GB

1772. As BLM proceeds with regional conservation efforts, an open and transparent process is fundamentally important. A full 

commitment to transparency calls for BLM to ensure the public availability of a consolidated clearinghouse of essential data 

and information, including all state-level Preliminary Priority and General Habitat data, maps, and the decision process used 

to generate the boundaries. BLM should also make available any other high level mapping and modeling information that is 

necessary to engage in the public process and to analyze proposed sage-grouse conservation measures. Failure to provide 

such information not only undermines NEPA and other federal law,17 but has great potential to undermine the overall

success of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy by disenfranchising stakeholders from a meaningful and 

impactful role. Both the BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy (IM 2012-044) and the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures (IM 2012-043) reference Preliminary Priority Habitat and 

Preliminary General Habitat data to identify key sage-grouse habitat, dictate management prescriptions and analyze 

conservation actions within those areas.18 Unfortunately, and despite BLM’s strong coordinating effort between states and

repository of information on the national sage-grouse website, this information is unavailable to the public. Both Instruction 

Memorandums suggest that non-BLM personnel may access this information through the respective state agencies;19 

however, it has been our experience that such availability is severely limited or nonexistent, depending on the state agency 

involved. We consider this a serious deficiency and suggest that BLM immediately incorporate procedures to guarantee that 

geospatial and ecological data and maps, as well as the decision processes used to delineate boundaries, are available for the 

GB Both emc0355GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-370 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

public review process. This information should be amalgamated and housed in a central and authoritative clearinghouse.

1773. Similarly, we strongly recommend that BLM ensure that any other geospatial and modeling information used in the process 

of examining sage-grouse conservation measures be made publicly available, and thereby incorporated into planning 

decisions. Such information includes, but is not limited to, the following:  Seasonal habitats beyond breeding areas (i.e. 

winter concentration areas);  Complementary delineations of priority habitats across state borders;  Important 

corridors and transition habitat, including those that might not be identified on state maps;  Management actions that 

maintain and increase sage-grouse distribution AND abundance in these areas; and  Unique considerations for small, 

isolated populations (scalable response). Preliminary Priority and General Habitat data and maps as well as other geospatial 

and ecological modeling information will facilitate informed agency decision-making and is essential information for the 

interested public, other agencies, sportsmen, nongovernmental organizations, developers, and additional stakeholders to 

consider when discussing a National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy and subsequent land use management plan 

revisions. Summary: BLM should make the Priority and General Habitat maps, and the procedures used to delineate habitat 

boundaries, available on a central website. BLM should also make available the data, maps, and decision making processes 

used to generate other designated protection areas in the EIS’s.

GB Both emc0355GB

1774. There are mapping models available that can allow BLM to identify important habitat use areas. Spatial modeling can allow 

managers to identify the most critical habitat. Many models determining core habitat focus on breeding habitat because lek 

data is more available than nesting or corridor information. Lek data is collected through sampling that is prone to variability, 

and only identifies habitat use during a short period of the year. It is important that BLM’s effort go beyond lek mapping and 

include the most recent information from Local Working Groups, telemetry studies, and state agency modeling of seasonal 

habitat and movement corridors. Any mapping method must be supported by the current most recent science, combined 

with scientifically defensible research and methods to estimate population density. Many state mapping efforts are works in 

progress and will require BLM to work collaboratively with state agencies. We encourage BLM's continued involvement in 

order to expedite the process to complete work on mapping and other conservation tools, while ensuring that maps are 

scientifically defensible. Summary: BLM should recognize the limitation of lek-based habitat mapping, and work with local 

stakeholders to accurately identify sage-grouse habitat requirements outside the limited lek radii.

GB Both emc0355GB

1775. According to the Technical Team, “If [a] disturbance exceeds 3% for [an] area, then [land management decisions should] 

make additional, effective mitigation necessary to offset the resulting loss of sage‐grouse habitat.” (page 11) Mitigation will be 

a vital component of the land use planning and necessary to ensure sage-grouse population stability and recovery. According 

to the Technical Team’s assessment, “development on private lands, which is not subject to mitigation, will focus greater 

needs for conservation of sage‐grouse and sagebrush on public lands.” (page 12) BLM’s habitat mitigation policy, codified at 

43 C.F.R. § 1508.20, lists habitat mitigation actions in descending order of preference: avoidance, minimization, rectification, 

reduction, and compensation. As BLM considers the siting and impacts of proposed new energy projects, it must keep in 

mind this mitigation hierarchy and consider “avoidance” the foremost objective. In order for BLM to comply with FLPMA 

and its own mitigation policy, the agency should seek “avoidance” of impacts by rigorously exploring alternatives which close 

large areas in important habitat for sage-grouse to industrial-scale development actions.

GB Both emc0355GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-371

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1776. We recognize that even with careful attention to the first four approaches on the mitigation hierarchy, there is increasing 

development of renewable energy on public lands, and habitat impacts will sometimes require compensation and offsite 

mitigation. The NTT suggests that if disturbance related to right-of-way (ROWs) “exceeds 3% for that area, then make 

additional effective mitigation necessary to offset the resulting loss of sage‐grouse.” (page 13) The BLM should require 

off-site mitigation for impacts which cannot be mitigated on-site, or where landscape approaches to mitigation offer 

opportunities to address conservation needs on a larger scale while generating net conservation benefits for sage-grouse. 

Off-site mitigation should follow the guidelines described above including: 1) a ”net conservation benefit” requirement for 

resources and values; 2) requirements for project developers to fund mitigation efforts based on the amount and value of the 

habitat impacted from development; 3) a centralized body should be established to oversee the funds and maximize the 

effectiveness of their use; and 4) off-site mitigation should be required to take place in the same ecoregion as the project site.

The increase in compensation and offsite mitigation will require careful management and new approaches. The importance 

of mitigation was reinforced on January 14, 2011, with the release of the new CEQ Guidance on “Appropriate Use of 

Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact."20 NEPA 

requires that BLM discuss mitigation measures in an EIS. (40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1502.16.) In order to show that mitigation will 

reduce environmental impacts to an insignificant level, BLM must discuss the mitigation measures “in sufficient detail to 

ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated.” 21 Simply identifying mitigation measures, without

analyzing the effectiveness of the measures, violates NEPA. Agencies must “analyze the mitigation measures in detail [and] 

explain how effective the measures would be . . . A mere listing of mitigation measures is insufficient to qualify as the 

reasoned discussion required by NEPA.”22 NEPA also directs that the “possibility of mitigation” should not be relied upon 

as a means to avoid further environmental analysis.23 Further, general statements that BLM will conduct monitoring are also 

not an appropriate form of mitigation. Simply monitoring for expected damage does not actually reduce or alleviate any 

impacts. Key considerations for off-site mitigation should include: • Identification of uses, resources and values associated 

with the project site. Establishing the connection between off-site mitigation and the resources of the public lands will 

require detailed understanding and knowledge of the values and uses present on the project site before development occurs, 

such as wildlife habitat, various recreational uses (ranging from hunting to bird watching to all terrain vehicle use) and scenic 

values. BLM should require that necessary inventory of the project site be completed prior to developing off-site mitigation 

measures. • A “net conservation benefit” requirement for resources and values. BLM should ensure that any loss of 

resources or values on a development site is compensated with the addition and protection of equivalent or better 

resources and values offsite with appropriate assurances that conservation values will be maintained for at least as long as 

project impacts persist. BLM should also make a determination about the value of the habitat to be impacted and adopt 

direction for mitigation requirements for the specific habitat types impacted. For example, for high quality habitat which is 

relatively scarce or becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion section, BLM policy should ensure a net gain of 

in-kind habitat value. Additions of lands and resources should exceed the value of any resources lost. Additions could be 

gained through restoration efforts to improve the quality and quantity of equivalent resources and values off-site. Mitigation 

for impacts to water resources could be addressed by purchase and retirement of water rights to offset groundwater 

pumping by the project. • Requirements for project developers to fund mitigation efforts based on the amount and value of 

GB Both emc0355GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-372 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the land impacted from development. Project developers should be required to make deposits to a mitigation fund based on 

the amount of land used for the project and the habitat value of that land, the costs of any restoration or enhancement

actions necessary to produce a net conservation benefit, and the stewardship costs necessary to maintain conservation 

benefits over time. • If funds are received as a part of mitigation, a centralized body should be established to oversee the 

funds and maximize the effectiveness of their use. BLM should establish a centralized body comprised of BLM staff, and other 

federal and state agencies with expertise and interest to oversee the distribution of funds and maximize the effectiveness of 

their use. This body should be required to take into consideration recommendation from the public in the distribution of 

funds. • Off-site mitigation should be required to take place in the same ecoregion as the project site. An ecoregion is a "large 

unit of land or water containing a geographically distinct assemblage of species, natural communities, and environmental 

conditions". Ecoregional health is critical for maintaining the health of individual ecosystems within the ecoregion. In addition 

to ensuring that off-site mitigation meets a “net conservation benefit” requirement for resources and values lost on the 

project site, BLM should require that mitigation take place in the same ecoregion as the project site and seek to direct 

mitigation investments to actions that will promote broader ecosystem recovery.

1777. Mitigation protections will require additional and ongoing monitoring to determine effectiveness. There is an important 

distinction between the monitoring required to assess effectiveness of mitigation, and research or monitoring completed in 

lieu of on-the-ground mitigation. We do not support research funding as a substitute for compensatory habitat mitigation 

applied on the ground.

GB Both emc0355GB

1778. Summary: BLM should apply habitat mitigation actions in descending order of preference: avoidance, minimization, 

rectification, reduction, and compensation. When compensation is used for mitigation, BLM should ensure that 

compensation is spent on effective mitigation measures, applied on the landscape scale, to sage-grouse habitat that is similar 

or greater in value than the lost habitat services. Ongoing stewardship, monitoring, and adaptive management will be 

necessary to ensure that compensatory mitigation is effective.

GB Both emc0355GB

1779. The Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments as part of the scoping 

process for the above referenced Notice of Intent (NOI). NWMA urges the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) to ensure that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Great Basin Region Greater 

Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy analyzes a full range of alternatives, fully discloses the existing conditions of greater 

sage-grouse species and associated habitat including a population trend analysis, considers the existing conservation 

measures in place for the greater sage-grouse as they relate to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), evaluates 

the adequacy of the baseline data used to support the analysis in the EIS, and clearly defines greater sage-grouse habitat using 

on the ground characteristics within the Great Basin Region.

GB Both emc0321GB

1780. Below we provide comments toward the EIS to Incorporate Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures into Land Use 

Plans and Land Management Plans. The comments are focused in part around the December 2011 Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. Some of the language in this report, which is likely to serve as a foundation for 

the EIS, raises concerns, largely because it points toward one-size fits all solutions. Such an approach will not work, largely 

because the solutions will not match local issues in scope, scale, or complexity.

GB Both rmc0067GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-373

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1781. The current report places virtually no emphasis on local plans and/or risk assessments that have been completed in many 

areas. Important work went into developing these plans and if they are disregarded critical trust issues will emerge. This 

situation would not benefit the BLM, important stakeholders or sage-grouse.

GB Both rmc0067GB

1782. Given the success of the local working group model to address other issues, we believe that strategies for protecting the 

greater sage grouse and its habitat are best designed and implemented in that forum. The local working groups are the ideal 

vehicle to bring together all interested stakeholders to develop community based solutions in response to unique conditions 

within the context of the regional effort. Ecosystems occupied by greater sage-grouse populations vary and should be 

managed not by a one-size-fits-all approach but through an approach that allows land managers and local stake holders to 

collaborate on practices that benefit individual populations. We also believe that local working groups could provide a forum 

for the introduction, evaluation and closely controlled monitoring of innovative practices. We contend that the species will 

be better served through methods designed to reach population targets rather than proscriptive measures which mayor may 

not achieve the desired results but whose implementation is demanded regardless of its efficacy.

GB Both rmc0056GB

1783. The EISs and SEISs should analyze and disclose how greater sage-grouse management will impact all established multiple uses 

in existing land use plans. Any RMP/LMP amendment to address greater sage-grouse conservation should include flexibility 

to allow for alternative actions, the absence of which could actually prevent conservation instead of enhancing the species 

and habitat.

GB Both rmc0056GB

1784. The NOI also states: "The BLM and FS will consider a range of reasonable alternatives, including appropriate management 

prescriptions that focus on the relative values of resources while contributing to the conservation of the greater sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse habitat." Alternatives should be developed and adopted according to impacts on other multiple uses. In 

management decisions, flexibility for case-by-case decisions will allow modifications as needed.

GB Both rmc0056GB

1785. Monitoring should remain flexible enough to allow local input. Independently verified monitoring data should require 

changes in multiple-use activities only when prevalent data clearly indicates a causal relationship between the activity and an 

impact on population.

GB Both rmc0056GB

1786. Instructional Memorandum 2012-043 designates sage grouse habitat as either Preliminary Priority Habitat or Preliminary 

General Habitat. We have been unable to find record of the solicitation of public comment into these designations. While we 

agree that changes in management practices in some areas are more likely to result in significant habitat improvements than 

others, data from both state and local sources should be incorporated. Criteria for the respective designations should be 

clearly defined prior to evaluation. Priority mapping and designations should only include areas that are actually used by sage 

grouse .

GB Both rmc0056GB

1787. Analyses prepared during the NEP A process should not start with the assumption that a given activity embodied within the 

multiple-use concept is a threat to sage grouse habitat or conservation. Rather, the starting premise should be that properly 

managed activities can provide benefits for sage grouse. The analysis should make every effort to incorporate sustainably

managed activities into the protection strategies.

GB Both rmc0056GB

1788. Key issues are focused on the objectives of the state plan-sage grouse populations and sage-grouse habitat. It is assumed that 

primary emphasis will be given to those populations that are known or suspected to be at risk, or where future actions or 

stressors could create new risk factors. Areas with stable populations will be less of a focus (except where future actions 

IDMT Both rmc0028GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-374 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

could be a problem). -Consider populations at risk: -Are there populations known or suspected to be declining?

1789. The NOI states that the BLM and FS will use a "collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach where appropriate" for the 

consersvation of sage-grouse and their habitats. We generally encourage this approach, and believe the agencies should 

describe in detail the collaborative methods they intend to employ. We believe the LWG in southwest Montana should be 

included in this collaboration.

IDMT Both rmc0028GB

1790. The Dillon Field Office (DFO) has gathered habitat data vital to understanding regional sage grouse population and 

movements, as well as implementing recommended standards and guidelines in various management plans. These 

science-based guidelines have evolved over the past ten years through various administrative directives to better manage 

sage grouse populations and habitat. Watershed assessments and grazing permit renewals have been completed for the 

entire DFO under these directives. The DEIS should discuss where and what standards and guidelines have been 

implemented in the DFO that have effectively improved sage-grouse habitat and presumably the associate populations.

IDMT Both rmc0028GB

1791. Sage-grouse are documented to use USFS lands during winter and summer brood-rearing seasons in several locations in 

southwest Montana and southeast Idaho. As a vital part of this collaborative process, the USFS should update management 

needed for sage-grouse habitats in conjunction with this BLM process.

IDMT USFS rmc0028GB

1792. The Dillon RMP should be modified to incorporate preliminary priority area maps, and to update oil and gas stipulations to 

be consistent with new agency guidance.

IDMT BLM rmc0028GB

1793. Format is great for those that know what questions to ask. A panel set up with a group discussion reaches more people 

who may not ask the questions they want an answer to.

IDMT Both cfc0009GB

1794. Idaho is drastically different from Wyoming in terms of population dyanamic for grouse and state specific factors or variables 

that impact them. So Im not sure we just want to follow Wyomings model with out making sure Idaho specific needs are 

addressed.

IDMT Both cfc0042GB

1795. The Group has developed a sage-grouse conservation plan for Jarbidge Planning Area, which includes the goals outlined 

below. We ask that the BLM consider these goals as they finalize the Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. -Inform and eduate 

landowners and the general public regarding sage-grouse issues as they relate to various uses on lands in the Jarbidge Field 

Office

IDMT Both emc0158GB

1796. The Group believes strongly in the value of cooperative efforts between public and private entities and encourages BLM to 

include this value as part of the final strategy.

IDMT BLM emc0158GB

1797. Finally, the Group requests that the BLM consider the elements and recommendatoins outlined in the Idaho Conservation 

Plan for the Greater Sage Grouse. That plan can be viewed at 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/sageGrouseIconservPlan.pdf

IDMT BLM emc0158GB

1798. I studied you many maps- the one map showed that the area we are using and living on as "arid-dry desert" - Since the 

Murphy fire in 2007 all that area in Twim Falls/Owyhee County is huge grassland - you are wrong in calling it dry/arid as it is 

that no more- check facts- almost 700000 acres burned July 2007.

IDMT Both cfc0055GB

1799. Considering that the Sage Grouse is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) candidate, the act states express national policy to be 

that: “It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and Local agencies 

IDMT Both emc0112GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-375

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

to resolve ... issues in concert with conservation of endangered species.” [16 USC, 1531, c, (2)] This section also specifies 

that decisions as to the status of a species only “..after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or 

foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator control, 

protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices....” As such BLM needs to coordinate with Custer 

County in regards to RMPs to insure consistency with local LUP. This includes providing information in regards to the 

Greater Sage Grouse working Groups, and the Idaho State Sage grouse plan. Special emphasis should indicate what items or 

provisions to be included in the base-working model for NEPA, and any adjustments proposed for existing authorizations 

within Custer Resource Area.

1800. We have adopted various county plans affecting resource use and management within the county many of which are 

pertinent to Sage Grouse conservation and management. Those plans, including the Owyhee County Sage Grouse 

Management Plan, the Owyhee County Wildland Fire Plan, the Owyhee County Natural Resources Plan, the Owyhee 

County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances, have been provided to Idaho BLM Managers for their use in complying 

with the coordination and consistency provisions ofFLPMA. We expect BLM to make use of those plans, as provided for in 

FLPMA, during the development of the current plan revision and EIS.

IDMT BLM emc0212GB

1801. B. Owyhee County expects to be engaged by BLM Managers in the development of this EIS and in the revision of Land Use 

Plans affecting Owyhee County, through the coordination process provided for in FLPMA and further defmed by our existing 

Coordination Protocols. If the regional nature of this planning effort requires the establishment of an additional 

Coordination Protocol with the Regional Project Manager, we will be pleased to use our existing Idaho Protocols as the basis 

for such an agreement with the Project Manager.

IDMT BLM emc0212GB

1802. Idaho has a number of well established and effective Sage Grouse Local Working Groups which should be used as a resource 

for their local knowledge of bird populations, habitat, and threats. Those local working groups have also established an 

excellent record of habitat restoration projects that should be consider in this effort.

IDMT Both emc0212GB

1803. We encourage BLM to work cooperatively and collaboratively with the state's LWG's IDMT BLM emc0212GB

1804. 3. Build upon the progress and accomplishments the LWG's, counties, and state have made over the past twelve years. IDMT Both emc0212GB

1805. We believe that federal agencies should consider three viable options for furthering habitat conservation efforts on private 

lands. First, the agencies’ approach can be integrated with private land conservation benefits provided by the National 

Resource Conservation Service’s Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI): Third, another potential resource to consider when 

developing a collaborative approach to conservation across boundaries is the Framework for Mitigation of Impacts from 

Infrastructure on Sage-grouse and Their Habitats, developed by the Sage-Grouse Mitigation Subcommittee of the Idaho 

Sage-Grouse State Advisory Committee. The Idaho Mitigation Framework (December 6, 2010) is labeled a "Discussion 

Paper Final Draft" but has not yet been adopted. This draft framework, the result of a stakeholder process, may offer some 

guidance and helpful concepts for habitat conservation on non-federal lands, thereby complementing conservation strategies 

on federal lands. According to the summary: [T]the Mitigation Framework would serve as a science-based "mitigation 

module" that project developers and government regulators could use to achieve compensatory mitigation objectives called 

for in project plans and permits. While compensatory mitigation may help offset certain impacts arising from infrastructure 

IDMT Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-376 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

projects, mitigation should not be considered a substitute for first avoiding and then minimizing impacts. In addition, it is 

important to recognize that federal and state regulatory or land-management agencies, and county or local governments may 

also require additional stipulations, conditions of approval or other requirements as well as on-site mitigation, in accordance

with applicable law, regulation or policy. Discussion Paper Final Draft at 1.

1806. First, we want to ensure that the agencies are aware of the current sage grouse-related efforts of the state of Idaho. On 

March 9, 2012, Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed an Executive Order creating a state sage grouse task force charged with 

the mission of developing a state-wide regulatory mechanism to conserve sage grouse and preclude the need to list the 

species. The task force has been asked to complete this effort by May 31, 2012 so as to be timely to allow the BLM/FS to 

incorporate its work into the EISs and the accompanying land use plans. Because this is being developed by a broad-based 

group of Idaho citizens who have local knowledge of sage grouse populations and the effects thereon, this plan will contain 

the most effective tools for managing the land and conserving sage grouse in Idaho, BLM/FS should defer to the Idaho plan 

and utilize it, where applicable, as the preferred alternative for BLM/FS lands within the state.

IDMT Both emc0392GB

1807. I am dismayed at the poor BLM sage-grouse mapping and habitat identification effort that has been made in Idaho to date. 

The Attached map is the first opportunity we have had to see the "Priority"/core habitat mapping applied at a finer scale than 

the broad general purple colored splotches on maps at the public meeting. Idaho BLM has been claiming that the Core 

Habitat mapping for sage-grouse relies not only on leks, but also on winter and other habitats. However, selective memory 

loss appears to be occurring. Important habitats that have been identified in the past are being cast aside and relegated to 

"general" status. This favors wind or other developers or ranchers such as Rockville allotment permittees. For example, in 

the area of the Ridgeline wind ROWs south of Marsing near the Oregon border - BLM identified winter sage-grouse use in 

this area in documents when BLM was irrationally rubber-stamping placement of towers in and near Rockville. Now, the 

BLM's Idaho core mapping has the entire Ridgeline area west of Highway 95 mapped as only "General" habitat (not "Priority" 

habitat) - which will make it much easier for BLM to sacrifice to full-blown development in the future. This process so far 

has been a muddle, and ID's mapping is more slipshod than Nevada's - for example.

IDMT BLM emc0079GB

1808. We are alarmed at how this poor Idaho Interim mapping has been rolled into the EIS process, is. The Interim mapping must 

be immediately updated using all available info. It must reflect an honest and accurate depiction of identified sage-grouse 

habitats. Not just purple colored blobs (mapping on display at public meetings) based primarily on accessible regularly 

counted leks.

IDMT BLM emc0079GB

1809. I again emphasize that reliance on the Core Model will be a disaster for sage-grouse population viability in Idaho, a state 

which has already lost so much sagebrush. In Idaho, all remaining sagebrush habitats are vital. The question BLM should be 

asking is what can we do across all of this habitat to remove disturbances- not go down the path of the core model - that 

allows a plethora of existing disturbances to continue largely unchecked.

IDMT BLM emc0079GB

1810. Given the limited time frame available to the BLM to analyze and implement Sage-grouse amendment to the identified 

Resource Management Plans and Land and Resource Management Plans, we strongly recommend that the agency tier to 

existing RFDs from the last round of completed planning documents in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. While several of 

Colorado and Montana RMPs have yet to be finalized and implemented, many have already completed preparation of their 

planning RFDs, which should be used as part of the Sage-grouse amendment process. In so doing, BLM will have the benefit 

IDMT BLM emc0340GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-377

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of local information and expertise rather than attempting to prepare an additional regional RFD.

1811. The following comments relate to the BLM’s management prescriptions for sage-grouse habitat on the lands it manages in 

southwestern Montana by the Dillon Field Office. We strongly urge that, in developing its west-wide strategy for 

protecting and enhancing sage-grouse habitat, the BLM withdraw from the mineral leasing and mining laws, all BLM lands 

harboring sagegrouse habitats managed by the BLM within the Dillon Resource Area. Unfortunately, though the Dillon Field 

Office adopted a new Resource Management Plan in February 2006, that plan did not adequately protect sage-grouse 

habitats on BLM lands from inappropriate mining and mineral activities, such as oil and gas leasing, exploration and 

development, and hard rock mining. It is our view that a key means of protecting sage-grouse habitat is to prohibit those 

commercial development activities that impair or destroy those habitats. Therefore, we strongly recommend that in 

developing the plan for protecting and enhancing sage-grouse populations in southwestern Montana, that the plan provide 

for the prohibition of mining and mineral development on sage-grouse habitats managed by the BLM. The best way to insure 

adequate protection for these habitat values is to place such lands off-limits to incompatible mining and mineral development 

by administratively withdrawing them from the operation of the mining and mineral leasing laws.

IDMT BLM emc0329GB

1812. BRC strongly opposes incorporating into any plan amendment the following objective contained in the December 21, 2011 

report from the Sage-grouse National Technical Team “A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures:” Manage priority sage grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances ‐ cover less than 3% of the total 

sage‐grouse habitat regardless of ownership. Anthropogenic features include but are not limited to paved highways, graded 

gravel roads, transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells and associated facilities, 

pipelines, landfills, homes, and mines. (A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures, December 21, 

2011 pages 7-8, bold underline added) Many sage-grouse habitat polygons, both general and priority, encompass areas where 

public land is interspersed among private lands. Where the private lands are used for agriculture, this provision will require 

the agencies to consider drastically reducing any human use of the adjacent public lands, even if those activities are not 

significantly impacting the sage grouse or its habitat. During a visit to a BLM office in Idaho, BLM staff helped us determine 

the potential impact of this objective. In several priority habitat polygons this objective would virtually eliminate any 

anthropogenic disturbances on BLM lands. Off-site mitigation for the current disturbance simply wasn't possible. We 

strongly encourage the agencies to carefully consider the impacts of this objective. At the very minimum, the agency must 

clarify and analyze the impacts this objective will have on the land use plans being amended.

IDMT Both emc0345GB

1813. WHEREAS, the Custer County Commissioners, as the Governing Board, in accordance with Idaho Statutes, Title 67 'State 

Government and State Affairs', chapter 65 'Local Land Use Planning' has an established LUP and has notified the Secretary of 

Interior of its right to 'coordinate' under FLMPA, which requires the federal management agencies to consider Custer 

County's importance in determining the future use of the lands within the County;

IDMT Both rmc0146GB

1814. AND WHEREAS, the Custer County Governing Board has established a Natural Resource Advisory Committee (NRAC) to 

advise and assist in the coordination process with federal agencies. The BLM as lead agency is required by FLPMA 43 USC 

1701 (a)(2) that "the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and their resources are ..... coordinated with 

other federal and state planning efforts." Section 1712 c-9, 43 USC refers to the 'coordination status' of a county which is 

IDMT Both rmc0146GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-378 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

engaging in the land use planning process and requires the Secretary of Interior must "coordinate the land use inventory, 

planning and management activities .... with the land use planning and management programs of other federal departments 

and agencies and .... Iocal Governments within which the lands are located". This provision gives statutory preference to 

those counties which are engaging in a LUP process preference over members of the general public, special interest and 

extremist groups.

1815. Section 1712 also mandates that the Secretary of Interior must "assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies 

between federal and non-federal plans." It further states that the Secretary must "provide for meaningful public involvement 

of state and local officials ... in thedevelopment of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public 

lands." In viewing of the requirement that the Secretary "coordinate" LUP and the requirements that involvement of local 

government be "meaningful", Custer County Commissioners as the Governing Board (which has Coordination status) 

should be involved throughout the planning and management cycle, not just at the end when a draft plan or decision is issued;

IDMT Both rmc0146GB

1816. AND WHEREAS, the Sage Grouse is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) candidate, the Act states express national policy to 

be that: "It is further declared to be the policy of Congress that Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and Local 

agencies to resolve ... issues in concert with conservation of endangered species" [16 USC, 1531, c, (2)]. This section also 

specifies that decisions as to the status of a species only " ... after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any 

State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator 

control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices .... " As such, the BLM as the lead agency must 

specify how the proposed LUP will consider the efforts of the local sage grouse working groups and livestock grazing 

management plans of its permittees.

IDMT Both rmc0146GB

1817. BLM needs to coordinate with Custer County in regards to RMPs to ensure consistency with local LUP. This includes 

providing information in regards to the Greater Sage Grouse Working Groups, and the Idaho State Sage Grouse Plan. 

Special emphasis should indicate what items or provisions are to be included in the base-working model for NEPA, and any 

adjustments proposed for existing authorizations within the Custer Resource Area.

IDMT Both rmc0146GB

1818. As a landowner with identified leks on my family's property in the Shoshone Basin Shoshone Creek watershed in south 

central Idaho I am concerned that lack of coordination among federal agencies concerned with the greater sage-grouse will 

adversely affect the efforts of landowners, public working groups and some federal agencies to keep the sage-grouse from 

being listed under the Endangered Species Act.

IDMT Both rmc0071GB

1819. I suggest the BLM and Forest Service closely coordinate among concerned federal agencies on planning issues as to efforts 

that are in place to preclude listing and that large proposals such as the Gateway West Transmission Line not be authorized 

on federal lands within areas of known significant sage-grouse habitat, but rather located within existing developed 

transmission corridors.

IDMT Both rmc0071GB

1820. As landowners with identified leks on our property in the Shoshone Basin-Shoshone Creek watershed in south central Idaho 

we are concerned that lack of coordination among federal agencies concerned with the greater sage-grouse will adversely 

affect the efforts of landowners, public working groups and some federal agencies to keep the sage-grouse from being listed 

under the Endangered Species Act.

IDMT Both rmc0072RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-379

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1821. We suggest the BLM and Forest Service closely coordinate among concerned federal agencies on planning issues as to efforts 

that are in place to preclude listing and that large proposals such as the Gateway West Transmission Line not be authorized 

on federal lands within areas of known significant sage-grouse habitat, but rather located within existing developed 

transmission corridors.

IDMT Both rmc0072rm

1822. Underlying this process is agency reliance on an offshoot of the Wyoming Core Model. This is a Priority Habitat, General

Habitat, and Non-Habitat sagebrush lands segregation scheme. Basically, the agency takes some degree of better care in 

Priority habitats (largely based on where leks have been monitored and more birds counted) while still allowing 3% more 

development to occur in Priority areas. Then, the scheme pretty much sacrifices everything else – including occupied 

General sagegrouse habitat, and unoccupied sagebrush or other lands often inhabited by other rare and declining species. 

The imposition of the Priority and General habitat sacrifice scheme discards the careful multi-year planning that went into 

the existing Idaho sage-grouse plan and mapping and identification of Key and restoration habitats, and other similar efforts.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

1823. Western Watersheds Project attended the BLM Sage-grouse Scoping Meeting in Boise January 9th. We were alarmed to see 

BLM's Priority Habitat mapping for Idaho for the first time. Fairly small maps with little detail were hung on the wall. There 

was no handout that provided the series of maps. We were told that a map of "Priority Habitat" had only that day finally been 

posted on BLM's Website.The rest of the mapping still wasn't up on-line. We also asked the BLM Project leader if the data 

used to develop the mapping was available. We were told that BLM was working on getting the GIS and other info available, 

but it was not yet ready. We requested all of the data. The BLM mapping eliminated large areas of critical habitats like most 

of the Pahsimeroi, large areas of the Little Lost, Birch Creek, the Idaho-Oregon-Nevada borderlands (ION), portions of the 

Owyhee Front, areas of south eastern Idaho. BLM forgot all the promises made to the public (and vast sums of tax dollars it 

has spent) in efforts at restoration/rehab of burned and other disturbed lands. Many of the areas identified as Restoration 

Habitat in the Idaho Sage-grouse Plan weren't even mapped as any kind of habitat in the Idaho BLM PPH Map. Also, BLM did 

not provide a map of historical habitat or previously identified restoration and other habitats so the public could gauge how 

severe losses already had been, or the restoration habitat that was abandoned in the PPH/GH mapping.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

1824. An example of BLM mapping eliminating habitat where it has very recently committed to, or identified the need for, and 

spent millions of dollars on restoration of habitat, is the entire northern half of the Jarbidge BLM office. This is mapped with 

no sage-grouse habitat of any kind, even where leks are present.

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

1825. At the public meeting, we asked Paul Makela, the ID BLM lead, about many areas that had been omitted, and the removal of 

occupied sage-grouse habitat (with leks) from Priority consideration, and the removal of restoration habitat. He pointed to 

the Snake River Plain in response, and said "We're never going to restore that" as if that was a reason for BLM’s Sage 

Grouse mapping not to carefully detail and include as habitat BLM and Forest land occupied sage-grouse habitats as well as 

habitats identified for restoration in sage-grouse plans. Maybe BLM won't be able to restore some areas of the Snake River 

Plain, but there are vast areas that had been sage-grouse habitat now seeded to crested wheatgrass, or as fire rehab including 

with natives, or where native recovery was supposed to be the goal. The public was promised when BLM was spending 

millions of dollars in fire rehab that lands would be recovered as sage-grouse habitat. These areas must be identified, and 

included as habitats in any mapping and conservation planning as they already had been in the IDFG Plan that the BLM scheme 

jettisoned. They are necessary to sustain viable populations and expand sage-grouse distribution. As part of this current EIS 

IDMT Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-380 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

process, a definite and specific plan for recovering sagebrush habitats and expanding the area of sagebrush habitats and 

sage-grouse abundance and distribution must be developed.

1826. The Key and restoration habitat approach of the 2006-2011 IDFG Plan must be examined as a component of a range of 

alternatives, in contrast with alternatives based on the Core/Priority habitat sacrifice scheme.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

1827. The Notice states that: The most current approved BLM corporate spatial data will be supported by current metadata and 

will be used to ascertain greater sage-grouse habitat extent and quality. Data will be consistent with the principles of the 

Information Quality Act of 2000. We had requested information on leks used in mapping from BLM, and they told us to 

speak to IDFG. But IDFG had originally told us to speak to BLM to get lek info used in this process. We finally obtained lek 

data from IDFG. However, no data has been provided by BLM on all the specific steps used to actually derive its flawed PPH 

maps using this data. What is corporate spatial data?

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

1828. The NTT’s Goals are inadequate. For example: "Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by 

conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other 

conservation partners" is woefully inadequate. BLM must significantly increase abundance and distribution, and state specific 

goals and time frames to achieve this. These goals must be based full consideration of the current status of habitats for each 

population. And BLM must, of course, conserve, enhance, and restore habitats and populations. The Core and Priority 

schemes will not allow this to occur. This habitat segregation immediately chops off critically important habitats, including in 

areas of Idaho and Nevada where there has already been so much sage-grouse and sagebrush loss. The Idaho model (and 

map that accompanied the BLM IM) completely excludes large areas identified as very important for conservation over the 

past seven years under the Idaho Sage-grouse Plan. Habitats essential for birds to move over the landscape and even entire 

seasonally important habitats are not included in the Priority habitat. See Nevada discussion - where even "moderate" 

importance and "transitional" habitats are excluded from the Priority scheme. BLM must conserve, enhance and restore -

not just maybe, perhaps, sometimes, do one of the above a little bit, "where appropriate."

IDMT Both emc0411GB

1829. Agencies are to "develop a monitoring and Adaptive Management strategy and allow for revisions.." Conservation partners 

are referred to in the NTT. WWP hereby requests to be a "conservation partner" in this process, and to work with BLM 

to fully develop an alternative. We have just reviewed an agenda for the Idaho Sage-grouse Task Force, and see that it is being 

given until May to develop an alternative. WWP is a stakeholder, and many of our members reside in the sagebrush biome, 

use public lands for recreation, photography, birdwatching, scientific and other purposes. Our members greatly enjoy and 

appreciate the presence of sage-grouse on public lands. Further, many of our members own lands within the sage-grouse 

biome, and the range of sage-grouse.

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

1830. Any reclamation plan in any sagebrush habitat must protect and improve sage-grouse habitat - and to minimize adverse 

impacts to other native species while doing so. BLM does not even require this for the artificially segregated General 

habitats. All existing sagebrush habitats must be protected. We strongly oppose the relegation of critically important 

sagebrush habitats to the "general" habitat category with even lower measures of protection or rehab being applied. Also, for

the sacrificed general areas, there are hardly any road intrusion protections or BMPs provided at all. Example: NTT p. 65. 

This illustrates how BLM is immediately acting with the NTT and IM to reduce protections for sacrificed General Habitat. In 

Idaho - that is 1/3 or more of the sagebrush habitat that BLM has deigned to recognize (and many restoration habitats aren’t 

IDMT BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-381

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

even included at all in the mapping). BLM must immediately stop this segregation of habitats based on woefully incomplete 

knowledge and that is greatly biased towards industry.

1831. BLM Must Define Terminology Being Used, and This Should Have Already Been Done BLM claims to "sustain" or 

"conserve" habitats or populations, for example, in its Idaho mapping legends. But how are these being defined? The NTT 

fails to provide definitions. Restoration must be defined, as well.

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

1832. The paper then discusses: management approaches for consideration, and the 2010 Doherty et al. habitat map. It does not 

even refer to maintaining and protecting habitats. Instead, it refers to maintain or protect Maintenance may also apply to 

certain Gas Management actions could include: the establishment of exclusion zones (for certain types of actions) 

sage-grouse conservation areas/ACECs to minimize or reduce anthropogenic impacts. Aggressive approaches to wildfire 

suppressions. It uses weak, uncertain wording- like "could".

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

1833. The regulations should reiterate that ecosystems, occupied habitat and greater sage‐grouse populations vary and should not 

be managed by a "one‐size‐fits‐all" approach, but rather by an approach that allows land managers, local working groups, and 

grazing permittees to collaborate on management practices that benefit the resources affecting individual populations in 

small areas‐not over the entire west‐wide greater sage‐grouse range.

IDMT Both flh0000GB

1834. The state of Idaho is currently in the process of developing a state sage grouse conservation strategy which should be 

completed in June. Because this is being developed by a broad‐based group of Idaho citizens who have local knowledge of 

sage grouse populations and the effects thereon, this plan will contain the most effective tools for managing the land and 

conserving sage grouse in Idaho. BLM/FS should defer to the Idaho plan and utilize it, where applicable, as the preferred 

alternative for BLM/FS lands within the state.

IDMT Both flh0000GB

1835. This region is great sage grouse habitat because the BLM and the local ranches have worked together to make it that way. A 

successful sage grouse conservation strategy will recognize the successes of the partnership between local ranches and the 

BLM. It will build on those successes by making the partnership stronger.

MT-RM BLM emc0013RM

1836. The Bentonite Road in Valley County is recognized as one of the best places to see a mountain plover. The RMP should 

preserve the current management of that habitat.

MT-RM Both emc0013RM

1837. This prairie has been conserved because of 60 years of partnership between local ranchers and the BLM. A successful sage 

grouse conservation plan will acknowledge that partnership and seek ways to strengthen it.

MT-RM BLM emc0013RM

1838. A couple of critical issues that will need to be preserved and or considered are; - Keeping Montana ranches and farms 

economically viable.. - Keeping in place the established land use "Traditions"... - Continue to work with the public private 

partnership in place... - Protect northeast Montana from changes in land management.. - Preserve the public and enhance the 

private access potential..

MT-RM Both emc0017RM

1839. Northeast Montana has the healthiest, most diverse grassland ecosystem in the world. We have so many sage grouse that 

the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks is translocating some of them to Canada. This region's sage grouse 

production is due to decades of cooperation between ranchers and the BLM.

MT-RM Both emc0023RM

1840. In the EIS, please include an analysis of the importance of this public-private partnership to the sage grouse. Please explore 

things the BLM can do to strengthen this partnership by keeping ranches economically viable. When amending the RMPs, 

MT-RM Both emc0023RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-382 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

please protect northeast Montana from any changes in land management. Instead, this region's land use traditions should be 

used as a model for sage grouse conservation and restoration elsewhere.

1841. Northeast Montana has the healthiest, most diverse grassland ecosystem in the world. We have so many sage grouse that 

the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks is translocating some of them to Canada. This region's sage grouse 

production is due to decades of cooperation between ranchers and the BLM. In the EIS, please include an analysis of the 

importance of this public-private partnership to the sage grouse. Please explore things the BLM can do to strengthen this 

partnership by keeping ranches economically viable. When amending the RMPs, please protect northeast Montana from any 

changes in land management. Instead, this region's land use traditions should be used as a model for sage grouse conservation 

and restoration elsewhere.

MT-RM Both emc0028RM

1842. In Montana, it is important to point out that the sage grouse population is thriving. Because of the stable population, our 

members do not support reductions of livestock on federal lands as a means to conserve sage grouse. Livestock grazing is 

proven to be a benefit to sage grouse, as stated in the Montana Sage Grouse Management Plan. Our organizations support 

more proactive measures to conserve sage grouse, such as support for local working groups and the NRCS Sage Grouse 

Initiative. These types of efforts will have a much more favorable collaboration of community members working toward 

maintaining and improving communities and wildlife habitat. These types of efforts should be used as a model in other 

programs or as a pilot program in the development of the upcoming Farm Bill. Simply reducing livestock grazing on federal 

lands will not benefit the ranching stewards of the land or the sage grouse. The unintended consequences of decisions that 

negatively impact our rancher members will also impact the greater sage-grouse, by encouraging the conversion of private 

rangelands into farmland, urban development, or other uses not conducive to greater sage-grouse habitat.

MT-RM Both emc0157RM

1843. Montana, “priority habitat” as described by BLM is synonymous with “core habitat” as mapped by a collaborative process 

between Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and BLM in 2008 (Version 1.0, released on CD by FWP 1/28/2009).

MT-RM BLM emc0248GB

1844. I thought the Q&A could have lasted longer to provoke more group discussion. I also felt the BLM could have been more 

focused on governing policy than general sage-grouse information. I understand getting everyone on the same page as far as 

species conservation goes but this shouldn't be the focus of the evening. BLM officials could have spent more time addressing 

the new interim management policies, update focus on RMPs, and what specific conservation measures we as 

farmers/biologists/industrialists can expect to see more of. I left the meeting knowing the new BLM hierarchy but little about 

new measures we should know about and employ to directly benefit the species. Tim Zachmeier and David Wood were 

helpful in trying to clarify these questions to the best of their knowledge.

ND BLM cfc0001RM

1845. However, I do feel the presenters could have explained current research methodologies and theories for the public to 

understand the planning strategy. For example, what are the results and other information from banding/tagging the brids.

ND Both cfc0002RM

1846. Also, we do some field work in Montana, which has a larger amount of sagebrush habitat. Is there a meeting planned 

regarding the planning stratigies and revisions on RMPs, etc?

ND Both cfc0002RM

1847. As the management plan is developed, we encourage BLM officials to work with local farmers and ranchers who have the 

most knowledge of local needs and conditions and are better equipped to seek solutions that work best in the local area. 

BLM should collaborate with them, not interfere with or hinder their efforts. Local efforts have already been made to 

enhance the sage‐grouse population in southwest North Dakota and those efforts should be rewarded, not penalized.

ND BLM emc0024RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-383

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1848. Currently, eleven Forest Service land management plans are included in the scoping process. We believe it is important these 

efforts be expanded to include the Little Missouri National Grasslands. North Dakota is on the eastern fringe of sage grouse 

range and has the smallest population of any of the states. Although sage grouse numbers have greatly diminished in North 

Dakota and the range they presently occupy has contracted, active leks are still found within boundary of the Little Missouri

National Grasslands. As recently as last year, both young and adult birds were documented on Forest Service lands. In terms 

of sage grouse priority habitat, the Forest Service manages roughly 74,000 surface acres of habitat while the BLM manages 

59,000 acres. In order for sage grouse to persist, it is important and necessary to incorporate up-to-date conservation 

measures across both Forest Service and BLM lands in North Dakota. The Land Management Plan for the Little Missouri 

National Grassland is approximately a decade old. Although newer than many Bureau of Land Management land use plans, it 

is dated and inadequate in terms of the protections it affords sage grouse. Therefore, we ask that the planning process 

include the Little Missouri National Grassland.

ND USFS emc0153RM

1849. Protecting the sage grouse habitat is important. It not only helps to ensure the survival of the species in Nevada, but it is also 

an act of stewardship -- one that will enable future generations to enjoy Nevada's great outdoors and the wildlife that make 

it such as special place.

NVCA Both emc0019GB

1850. YES to protecting the sage grouse and the land it inhabits. NVCA Both emc0019GB

1851. We request that the Preliminary Priority Habitat and Preliminary General Habitat planning maps, showing designated sage 

grouse habitat, be made available at least 30-days prior to the close of the public scoping period so people can have an 

opportunity to review and comment. Industry within Nevada has been asking to view these maps, and the state agency has 

indicated that the maps are not completed yet.

NVCA Both rmc0027GB

1852. General Moly, Inc. ("General Moly") is formally requesting an extension of the comment period on the above referenced 

Notice of Intent. The reason for this request is that all of the relevant information that we and other stakeholders need to 

evaluate the Bureau of Land Management's ("BLM's") proposed greater sage-grouse conservation measures is not yet 

available. These measures will have a significant impact on General Moly and all other users of public land with potential 

sage-grouse habitat.

NVCA Both rmc0037GB, 

rmc0011rm

1853. The comment period should be extended for a reasonable amount of time after the Nevada Department of Wildlife 

("NDOW") publishes the sage-grouse habitat maps that it described at Governor Sandoval's January 18, 2012 Sage-grouse 

Stakeholder Update meeting in Carson City. According to NDOW staff, their maps are scheduled to be completed in about 

one month.

NVCA Both rmc0037GB, 

rmc0011rm

1854. It is clear from BLM's Federal Register notice that maps being prepared by state agencies will provide critically important data 

to be considered in the EIS and SEIS documents: "State Game and Fish agencies' greater sage-grouse data and expertise will 

be utilized to the fullest extent practicable in making management determinations on Federal lands." (Page 77011, 76 FR 

77008). Prior to publication of these maps, General Moly and other Nevada stakeholders cannot properly comment on the 

BLM's proposed conservation measures or identify the issues that should be considered by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service 

in the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS) that would evaluate 

impacts associated with implementation of conservation measures. In light of the importance of the habitat maps that 

NVCA Both rmc0037GB, 

rmc0011rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-384 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

NDOW is preparing, General Moly and other Nevada stakeholders should be afforded the opportunity to see and evaluate 

these maps in order to provide substantive and effective comments on the issues to be considered in the EIS and SEIS 

documents.

1855. Additionally, it must be noted that the public in Nevada and nationwide has not had sufficient time (a minimum of 60 days) 

to evaluate BLM's sage-grouse documents that form the basis for the EIS and SEIS evaluations. Although the above-noted 

Federal Register notice was published on December 9, 2011, the following key BLM documents were not made available to 

the public until later in December: 1. BLM's National Technical Team's (''NTT's'') December 21, 2011 report entitled "A 

Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures". This report proposes unprecedented land use 

restrictions that would severely constrain the use of public lands with sage-grouse habitat for a wide range of jobs producing 

natural resource development projects including hard rock mining; 2. BLM Instruction Memoranda (IM No. 2012-043 and IM 

No. 2012-044) addressing land use planning and management for greater sage-grouse which were not issued until December 

27, 2011; and 3. BLM's December 27, 2011 news release announcing the availability of the Instruction Memoranda and the 

NTT Report. Again, a thorough review of these documents will allow General Moly and other Nevada stakeholders to 

provide more substantive, informed and effective comments. Given the length, complexity, and importance of these 

documents, additional review time is necessary.

NVCA Both rmc0037GB, 

rmc0011rm

1856. Elko County is in receipt of the letter of invitation from Mr. Rex McKnight dated December 07,2011, an invitation to be 

established as a cooperating agency on the above referenced project. Unfortunately Elko County was not able to respond to 

the invitation within the 15 day deadline. Elko County is very interested and concerned of the status of the greater sage 

grouse, the potential future impacts on the west and very much desires to be included in the planning process. The Elko 

County Board of Commissioners do hereby, officially request that the BLM and USFS establish Elko County, Nevada as a 

cooperating / coordinating agency on all matters and issues relating to the comprehensive planning effort to incorporate 

adequate conservation measures relating to the greater sage-grouse into land use plans across the west. Please feel free to 

contact me if you should have any questions or if I may be of any further assistance.

NVCA Both rmc0002GB

1857. On behalf of the Nevada Department of Wildlife, we wish to thank you for your offer and accept the role to be a 

Cooperating Agency for the duration of the Greater Sage Grouse LUP amendment/ EIS process. We understand that this 

effort is related to the development and implementation of a Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy for the Westem Region 

and for the preparation of documents for the States of Nevada and Califomia. The Nevada Department of Wildlife has been 

engaged in the planning that has occurred to date and looks forward to participating in the activities that will put 

conservation measures in place to ensure the well being of the species and its habitat. Please consider me your initial

contact for this endeavor. I can be reached at ssiegel@ndow.org or at (775) 688-1561.

NVCA Both rmc0018GB

1858. The County clearly understands the process being forced upon the BLM to revisit many Resource Management Plans to 

determine if their content is sufficient to provide the necessary protection for the Greater Sage Grouse. We also understand 

that the Regional Environmental Impact Statement approach and the use of sub-regions to analyze and potentially amend 

land use plans with new management direction is a new process and could prove to be somewhat cumbersome. However 

the County wishes to remind you that this different process does not relieve the BLM from their requirement to coordinate 

this planning effort with Modoc County. Modoc County staff attended the public meeting in Alturas on January 18. We 

NVCA Both rmc0013GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-385

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

found the contractors unprepared to answer how coordination with the County would take place given the unique planning 

process that has been developed. While the County is prepared to be user friendly given these unusual circumstances, the 

BLM must still fulfill their planning obligation required by Federal Land Policy Management Act and their planning regulations 

to coordinate with Modoc County. Please consider this letter as the County's request for your agency to meet with the 

County to establish the coordination process to be used for this planning effort. Your contact point is Modoc County 

Resource Analyst Sean Curtis. He can be contacted at (530) 233-3276 or at modoccfb@frontiernet.net. The County has 

only recently become aware that a letter was sent to the county governments within the Greater Sage Grouse habitat being 

considered in this planning effort extending an offer for cooperating agency status. Given that Modoc County fits this 

description, apparently this letter was either misplaced or never received.

1859. Please add the Interstate, US, and State Route paved highways and the towns to the "Nevada BLM and USFS Greater 

Sage-Grouse Preliminary Habitat Map" for reference.

NVCA Both emc0193GB

1860. If it hasn’t already been done, please remove these highways from the Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) designation. NVCA Both emc0193GB

1861. Why not a stakeholders meeting for Austin or Eureka? NVCA Both cfc0043GB

1862. In the future you should include Austin or Eureka as an additional stake holder meeting place for Sage-grouse Planning 

Strategy.

NVCA Both emc0030GB

1863. alternativesllThe Nevada Department of Wildlife has provided input to conservation plans that that deal with the quantity 

and quality of sage grouse habitat. These plans should be inco~r~~ed into the conservation measures of the EIS and 

associated RMPs and LMRPs~

NVCA Both emc0310GB

1864. We support a conservation alternative which would include the current Greater sage grouse Nevada state conservation 

plan. We also support an alternative which would provide for maximum recovery of Greater sage grouse and its habitats.

NVCA Both emc0404GB

1865. NV Energy presumes that the ultimate goal of the Instruction Memorandum for SageGrouse conservation is to avoid the 

listing of Sage-Grouse as an endangered species. NV Energy requests that the proposed EIS include a detailed analysis of the 

No Action Alternative assuming the final outcome is a listing.

NVCA Both emc0198GB

1866. NV Energy requests accurate maps which identify preliminary pnonty sage-grouse habitat versus preliminary general 

sage-grouse habitat. The accurate maps should be detailed enough to use for project planning purposes. These maps should 

be provided to all stakeholders so informed commentary and decision making can take place.

NVCA Both emc0198GB

1867. Lincoln County will participate with our "Coordinating" Authority granted in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976, 43 US Code Section 1712, and respectfully requests BLM to honor this federal directive. Please inform us of any 

other way in which we can become more engaged in this process. The County would also encourage incorporation of the 

Nevada Sage-grouse Strategy and the Lincoln County Population Management Unit Plan (PMU) into the BLMs policy 

document. These plans were developed with extensive local input and support from various public lands interests, and

should not be overlooked

NVCA Both emc0130GB

1868. Ranchers in Nevada, have seen sage grouse populations fluctuate each year. But, as my observations, and getting imput from 

my neighbors, there seems to be very little change to numbers of birds for the last 52 years

NVCA Both emc0143GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-386 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1869. National policies which are too often the product of national politics do no further multiple use policies for the public lands 

and when mailed from Washington to anywhere in the state of Nevada they do little to truly address the issues that state and

local folks on the ground know to be the most viable solutions

NVCA Both emc0213GB

1870. We are hopeful that the State of Nevada will seek to work with the BlM District Offices to establish a Nevada framework 

that is driven from the property, by the property and for the property and its owners both public and private. I I Our strong 

preference is for a cooperative approach driven from Nevada, addressing Nevada specific issues.)

NVCA Both emc0213GB

1871. In our experience, managing for a single species almost always results in failure. The focus of federal land management 

agencies on single species management has likely resulted in many of the issues we are facing now. Further, single species 

management is in direct violation ofthe Federal land Policy and Management Act (FlPMA) (1976). FLPMA requires the 

following regarding the development and revision of land Use Plans (FlPMA 1976): © In the development and revision of land 

use plans, the Secretary shall- (l) use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and other 

applicable law; (2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of phySical, biological, 

economic, and other sciences; Single species management does not offer the required interdisciplinary approach

NVCA Both fxc0010GB

1872. I appreciate the 0PPoliunity to make Collllnent on the listing of the greater sage-grouse and the fhture management plans for 

the species. I recognize that once a species is listed on the endangered list that no weight is given to the fiscal importance of 

an industry or the economic damage that is done when listing is incurred, and that is why I am providing contact with you

today to insure you that the agriculture industry is seeking to be a partner in creating a viable solution for the management 

of our lands that is beneficial for both wildlife and agriculture.

NVCA Both emc0269GB

1873. In my short tenure with the Department of Agriculture, it has been very apparent that the agriculture industry is actively 

engaged in the health and safety of the greater sage-grouse population. It is vital that the multitude of induslty sectors be 

pulled in and included in the development of a strategic plan that will identify all habitat factors and management changes that 

will result in the successful stabilization ofthe species population.

NVCA Both emc0269GB

1874. Specifically please address all of the identified threats to sage-grouse habitat to ensure a balanced approach to the 

management changes required to achieve our common goal. Any management plan must be inclusive of all the identified 

threats to sage-grouse habitat including invasive species, wildfire, wildlife, wild horse grazing, livestock grazing, predatory 

impacts, and harvesting through hunting practices.

NVCA Both emc0269GB

1875. Economic impact is not the first priority as we develop management plans for the protection of the sage-grouse to ensure 

their non listing as an endangered species. However, it is important and significant that attention is paid to the ongoing 

reduction oflands available for the production of agriculture tln'ough urbanization, regulatory control, and the ever 

increasing costs of production and its long term effects on this country's food security and more importantly to food 

independence as it relates to homeland security.

NVCA Both emc0269GB

1876. IM 2012-044 states, "The NTT-developed conservation measures were derived from goals and objectives developed by the 

NTT and included in Attachment 1. These goals and objectives are a guiding philosophy that should inform the goals and 

objectives developed for individual land use plans. However, it is anticipated that individual plans may develop goals and 

objectives that differ and are specific to individual planning areas." The Association does not believe conservation measures

developed in the National Technical Team (NTT) Report should be the guiding philosophy for any conservation measures. 

NVCA Both emc0328GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-387

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

The Association believes the NTT Report to be far more restrictive than an actual ESA listing of the greater sage-grouse. 

Recommendations in the NTT Report are not defined adequately and suggest possibilities, such as listed below, that would 

negatively impact the rangeland health and the ranching industry (our comments are underlined following the 

recommendation made in the NTT Report):

1877. Engage partner organizations and volunteers to help with restoration efforts NVCA BLM emc0401GB

1878. Nevadans have proven they can work together to make a difference for wildlife. Healthy sagebrush habitats are good for a 

huge number of wildlife species. Friends of Nevada Wilderness has been working as a partner with other organizations and 

agencies for years to improve the naturalness and quality habitat within wilderness, WSAs and roadless areas. For example, 

during the summer of 2011, we removed 75 miles of barbed-wire fence from the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge to help 

lessen sage-grouse and pronghorn encounters with no-longer-needed barbed-wire fences. I would encourage you to help 

create a vision and spirit of cooperation, and help identify on-the-ground projects where volunteers from conservation, 

wildlife, sportsmen, civic and/or service organizations can come together and make a difference for sage-grouse. I hope 

that everyone -from elected officials to ranchers to the wildlife and conservation community and public land agencies - can 

focus on finding common ground and specific ways to make meaningful improvements for sage-grouse.

NVCA BLM emc0401GB

1879. We agree that, if we are to succeed in making the listing of the Greater Sage Grouse under the Endangered Species Act 

unnecessary, it is critical that the agencies do not continue to manage the public lands in a business-as-usual fashion. Such 

management has caused the loss and fragmentation of Sage Grouse habitat west-wide and continuing declines in Sage Grouse 

population, such that the FWS has been found that the species now meets the ESA criteria for listing. Unfortunately, the 

interim guidelines, though necessary, are inadequate to reverse declining population trends and destruction and 

fragmentation of priority habitats. Two administrative actions by the agencies are critical: the amendment of land use plans 

to incorporate effective regulatory mechanisms and the timely implementation of these and the best science-based 

conservation measures for Sage Grouse specified in the land use plans. The EIS should address how agencies' existing 

regulatory authority is currently being used to conserve Sage Grouse and identify what additional authority is needed in each

of its programs. We understand that the implementation of land use plans is subject to the agencies' annual budgets and 

Congressional directions. We ask that the agencies' disclose in the EIS the likelihood or certainty of any existing or additional 

regulatory authority actually benefitting either Sage Grouse populations or their habitats on public lands. Please provide a 

Plan B, if budgets or new Congressional directions undercut agencies' conservation efforts.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1880. Equally important for the EIS is comprehensive information on the current conditions of Sage Grouse habitat on public lands 

and national forests. How much monitoring is being done by the agencies annually on priority Sage Grouse habitats on public 

lands and national forests in Nevada and eastern California? How many BLM and USFS grazing allotments are meeting 

standards and guidelines for healthy rangelands? How many acres of Sage Grouse habitat in our region are lost each year for 

the last ten years to development, wildfires, and invasive weeds? How many acres of Sage Grouse habitat have been restored 

in the last ten years in our region and what is the definition of "restoration?" How many projects have been completed, and 

at what cost, to benefit Sage Grouse regionally in the last ten years? Have the agencies done effectiveness monitoring on any

of the Nevada or eastern California projects; i.e. have any of these projects resulted in increasing Sage Grouse populations 

NVCA Both emc0283GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-388 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

or restoring Sage Grouse habitats? How are population or habitat improvements measured regionally and at the PMU scale 

in our two states? Very important to public support of agencies' Sage Grouse Conservation Initiative is improved annual 

reporting on Sage Grouse numbers and trends and status of priority habitats as well as agencies' and other state and private 

stakeholders' efforts to improve Sage Grouse conservation.

1881. Goals : Those of us who developed the Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation Plan easily agreed that the highest management 

priority is to maintain intact Sage Grouse habitat. Given the constant threats of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

due to wildfires (and related) spread of invasive species and failures of mitigation and "restoration" for approved 

developments and infrastructure (including alternative energy and proposed interbasin water transfers not originally 

considered in the state's plan), is this goal realistic? Some habitat disturbances cannot be controlled, but manmade 

disturbances can. Practically, how many acres of Sage Grouse priority habitats have to be rehabilitated or restored each year 

to compensate for the annual Sage Grouse habitat losses or fragmentation, statewide and in each PMU?

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1882. The second highest priority of the state's plan is to take management actions to conserve healthy rangelands and sagebrush 

habitats and to change land and resource management which is detrimental to either the Sage Grouse or its habitat. Are 

standards and guidelines for healthy rangelands adequate to meet this goal? If not, how should they be changed? We did not 

have the WAFWA guidelines or the National Technical Team guidelines when we developed the BLM standards and 

guidelines for healthy rangelands in the 1990's.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1883. Rehabilitation and restoration of Sage Grouse habitats damaged by wildfires, weeds, poor livestock and wild horse and burro 

management, recreational uses and development projects is our third goal. Without effectiveness monitoring, we cannot 

know whether scarce public funds for Sage Grouse projects were spent wisely or not; yet, funding for monitoring is usually 

the first victim of shortages in agencies' budgets. We do not even know whether Sage Grouse projects or other programs 

have actually harmed the species, such as fuels reduction projects which destroy sagebrush or Mormon cricket control 

projects which destroy potential food sources, yet the agencies routinely propose projects to eradicate pinyon-juniper, cut 

fuel breaks through intact sagebrush, burn or mechanically remove mature sagebrush - all without scientific verification or 

support, and most without any effectiveness monitoring which could establish either benefit or harm to Sage Grouse or its 

habitat. It reminds us of the history of BLM in which crested wheatgrass seedings were funded, usually late in the year, and 

hundreds of thousands of acres of sagebrush were destroyed, with the good intent and expectation that the seedings would 

solve all grazing management problems. Obviously, this strategy not only failed, but contributed extensively to Sage Grouse 

habitat destruction and fragmentation.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1884. Lastly, we do agree that the EIS must address the factors identified by the USFWS which lead to its warranted but precluded 

listing for Sage Grouse, including significant habitat conversion and fragmentation and the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. Although the EIS should address the other factors which were found not to be significant - disease, predation, 

and hunting, we note that the state 's plan also did not find these factors to be significant threats to Sage Grouse populations 

in Nevada and eastern California.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1885. Objectives: We support the objectives identified in the National Technical Team report. These include designating priority 

habitats at the PMU scale and identifying connectivity corridors between Sage Grouse populations and seasonal habitats. 

Obviously habitat conditions change, either due to stochastic events, or over time in response to restoration attempts or to 

NVCA Both emc0283GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-389

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

droughts or climate change. Therefore, a mechanism needs to be in place to evaluate the status of priority habitats and adjust 

them to changing situations. A minimum sagebrush cover standard should be set, based on the best science. Quantified 

habitat and population objectives must be set range wide, regionally, and at the PMU scale. with annual evaluations and 

reports on progress made. The agencies should approve no proposed projects or activities which disturb more than 3% of 

priority habitats. This number should be adjusted if the percentage limitation does not result in significant progress annually 

towards meeting population and habitat objectives. A number of acres to be restored or rehabilitated annually should be set 

range wide, regionally, and in each PMU, with annual reporting on progress towards meeting these objectives. The agencies 

should commit to an objective of protecting or restoring connectivity of sagebrush habitats, with some quantification 

proposed for each PMU.

1886. Alternatives: We support the development of a wide range of alternatives for the EIS. At a minimum, the EIS should consider 

alternatives which incorporate the best available science on needed Sage Grouse conservation measures as presented in the 

National Technical Team report (at:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/im_attachments/2012.Par.52

415.File.dat/IM%202012-044%20Att%201.pdf) . The EIS should include an alternative which would include the current Sage 

Grouse Nevada state conservation plan along with necessary updates. And the EIS should study an alternative which would 

provide for maximum recovery for both priority and general Sage Grouse habitats and reversal of declining population 

trends. Components of the recovery alternative could include the largest buffers around leks and other priority habitats, 

lowest disturbance requirements, greatest protective restrictions, no permits for large-scale disturbances, larger 

rehabilitation/restoration goals for both priority, general and disturbed habitats, and restoration of historic habitat 

functionality.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1887. Conservation Measures: We support the majority of the conservation measures in the National Technical Team guidelines. 

However, there are issues not considered or covered on which we will comment and request that they be discussed in the 

EIS.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1888. Instead, "mitigation" for development impacts on Sage Grouse and priority habitats is often proposed by project proponents 

and seemingly automatically accepted by the agencies. Or, mitigation funds can be used for other purposes, including making 

up for agencies' budget shortfalls. It is difficult if not impossible for the public to track the use of "mitigation" funds - how, 

where and when funds were expended and what benefits or costs resulted to either Sage Grouse or its habitat. Annual 

reporting on the implementation of agencies' Sage Grouse conservation measures, including the use of required mitigation 

funds, must be a land use plan requirement. For example, the public is currently unable to access the effectiveness of required 

and voluntary mitigation, especially about $15 million in financial mitigation paid by the proponent of the Ruby gas pipeline 

project in northern Nevada to the BLM, the USFWS, NDOW, and other private organizations. No mitigation funds should 

be required or accepted by agencies without a mitigation plan with quantified goals and objectives and full accountability for 

the use of mitigation funds to the public through annual reporting of funds expended and the results of effectiveness 

monitoring. We have other conservation measures to recommend for inclusion in the EIS.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1889. We are very confused by the federal designation of the West-wide Energy Corridor since it does not constrain the current 

siting of utility corridors in Nevada or possibly elsewhere. FERC and other agencies simply accept the proponents' proposed 

NVCA Both emc0283GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-390 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

corridor siting, even in remote intact sagebrush habitats in Nevada. How can this "regulatory" process be modified to include

Sage Grouse conservation measures?

1890. There are many programmatic EISs which affect the management and use of public lands and resources, including ones on 

alternative energy and vegetation management. The agencies should amend these to include the Sage Grouse conservation 

measures being added to land use plans in order to obtain management consistency.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1891. Interim guidelines provide some protections for Sage Grouse and priority habitats but greatly suffer from a plethora of 

wishy-washy language, including "consider" and "address" and other non-mandatory commitments. The land use plan 

conservation measures should fully reflect the commitment of the agencies to Sage Grouse conservation and 

implementation of regulatory requirements in land use plans.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1892. The Sierra Club strongly supports a coordinated approach by all agencies and stakeholders to identify prioritize needs and 

to pool funds for protecting Sage Grouse and its habitat. There are many sources available for funding Sage Grouse 

restoration projects, but we will not maximize its effectiveness unless we are able to integrate our limited resources. Please 

include a process for developing an integrated and coordinated plan for Sage Grouse conservation on public lands and 

national forests in Nevada and eastern California.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

1893. SNWA recognizes and encourages the Agencies' desire to improve conservation measures and regulatory mechanisms to 

assure adequate conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on public lands. SNWA supports the direction of 

BLM Instructional Memorandum No. 2012-044, which identifies that a reasonable range of greater sage-grouse conservation 

measures be subjected to a hard look analysis as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process. The Agencies should 

also consider their mandate for multiple-use land management with implementation of these conservation actions.

NVCA Both rmc0069GB

1894. SNWA respectfully requests that the EIS consider and discuss the following: how collaborative conservation efforts with 

private partners can help preserve greater sagegrouse;

NVCA Both rmc0069GB

1895. The NDOW habitat categorization map appears to mimic the BLM’s “Proposed Nevada Test and Training Range Resource 

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement” document, 2003, map for sage grouse as depicted in Figure 3‐5, 

Potential Sage Grouse Habitat as Mapped in Spring, 2001. This BLM document map list potential habitat and states that 

habitat as low quality based on BLM and NDOW surveys in 2001.

NVCA Both emc0280GB

1896. Interestingly, Barrick's ranches may provide unique opportunities for mitigation of impacts from its mining operations. As 

operating ranches, these off-site restoration opportunities, including restoration of habitat on fee land, would likely be 

unavailable without their connection to the mining operations. Creating new riparian vegetation or wetlands to mitigate for 

potentially impacted wetlands, improving degraded habitats to replace impacted areas, and developing water sources when 

access to water is prevented due to safety fencing are just a few examples of off-site mitigation that potentially could be 

available on Barrick's ranch lands.

NVCA Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM

1897. These flaws demonstrate the necessity for on-the-ground site assessments and that actual land-use decisions cannot be 

reliably based on the NDOW mapping. Our experience is that on-the-ground verification is the only way to assure the 

accuracy of habitat maps, which may focus on concepts of historic range without adequately considering the effects of fire, 

ecological succession, and incursion of invasive species. Based on our preliminary review of the NDOW maps, some of the 

NVCA Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-391

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

areas designated as Priority or General Habitat do not appear to reflect the current conditions. Whether this is due to dated

or inaccurate information, or simply a function of broad-scale mapping, the proposed habitat maps appear to contain errors 

and simplifications. These errors can be addressed during baseline data collection, but only if the mapping effort is ongoing. 

When the agencies released the Nevada maps, they acknowledged the necessity for such ground-truthing, stating: "To apply 

these results to specific locations it is necessary to conduct a field investigation by a qualified biologist for the purpose of 

impact assessment."

1898. The preliminary habitat map that BLM and USFS recently made available to the public is seriously flawed and cannot be used 

as the basis for the EIS documents that BLM and USFS are going to prepare. BLM and USFS published this map on March 9, 

2012 – just 14 days before the March 23, 2012 deadline for submitting these comments. The BLM-USFS habitat map is a 

derivative map that is based on a map that the Nevada Department of Wildlife (“NDOW”) prepared and recently released 

entitled, “Nevada Department of Wildlife Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Categorization Map.” The NDOW map is also 

flawed and should not be used as the basis for BLM’s and USFS’ Habitat Priority map.

NVCA Both emc0287GB

1899. BLM and USFS are planning to use the NDOW Habitat Categorization Map to make critically important decisions about how 

public lands in Nevada will be currently managed through implementation of the Interim Management Policies and 

Procedures in IM 2012-043, and in the future through implementation of the proposed measures described in the National 

Technical Team Report (“NTT Report”) or other alternatives that will be developed and analyzed in the EIS documents. 

BLM and USFS should not proceed with the NEPA analysis until a new map that uses more accurate data has been developed 

and field verified. It is inappropriate to base important policy decisions on maps that show sagebrush communities and

sage-grouse habitat that do not exist. The Hog Ranch map is a dramatic demonstration of the inaccuracies of the NDOW 

map (and the BLM and USFS map that is based on the NDOW map.) The NEPA analysis in Nevada must not be based on a 

map that mischaracterizes the location, nature, and extent of sage-grouse habitat.

NVCA Both emc0287GB

1900. The problems with the NDOW map and the derivative BLM-USFS map are likely due to the fact that the resolution of the 

satellite imagery data used to prepare the maps is too coarse for the ultimate use of the maps and the maps have not been 

field verified. BLM is proposing to use a landscape-scale map to make decisions that will affect project-scale activities and uses 

of public lands – including withdrawing lands from mineral entry. The coarse scale of this map is thus incongruent with the 

scope of the decisions that will be made using this map and the much finer scale projects that will be affected by these 

decisions. The comparison between the BLM-USFS habitat map and the Hog Ranch map quantifies this problem of scale. The 

area shown on the attached Hog Ranch map covers approximately 28 square miles; the boundary of major disturbance 

covers about nine square miles. BLM and USFS must collect habitat data that can be used to make a new map that will 

support land-use decisions affecting such large areas. Data that mischaracterize the habitat in an area as big as nine square

miles cannot be used as the basis for the environmental consequences analyses in the EIS documents, a comparison of 

alternatives in these documents, selection of an Agency Preferred Alternative, or ultimately to make land use decisions.

NVCA Both emc0287GB

1901. If BLM were to make a land-use decision using the habitat characterization of the Hog Ranch area from the NDOW map, it 

would be making this decision on the basis of faulty habitat data. Relying on this faulty data, BLM could decide that the 

previously mined areas at Hog Ranch should be made off-limits to mineral exploration and development. This would be a 

profoundly problematic land use decision for two reasons. First, it would deprive Pacific Rim and the claim owners of their

NVCA Both emc0287GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-392 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

collective property rights under the Mining Law. Secondly, it would eliminate the possibility of future redevelopment of the 

Hog Ranch mineral system into a new mine which would deprive the State of Nevada of the economic benefits – including 

high-paying jobs and tax revenues – that would result from resumed mining at this site.

1902. It is imperative that BLM and USFS obtain accurate and reliable habitat maps before making any land use decisions for lands 

thought to have sage-grouse habitat. The EIS process should be put on hold until an accurate habitat map is available.

NVCA Both emc0287GB

1903. Based on our comparison of the NDOW habitat map with the site conditions at Hog Ranch, it seems highly likely that there 

are other areas throughout the State of Nevada where the NDOW, and BLM-USFS habitat maps are inaccurate and 

mischaracterize (either overestimate or underestimate) the nature and extent of the on-the-ground sage-grouse habitat. 

BLM and USFS must not proceed with the EIS process until better, more accurate and field-verified maps are available.

NVCA Both emc0287GB

1904. To shut down the natural raw industries, whether it be mining, subsurface extraction of either oil & gas or geothermal, 

surface use of ranching and farming, seems to me that you are cutting future revenue for your own existence as an agency to 

manage the Public Lands as well as that of the State of Nevada, along with the other Western States for generations to come.

NVCA Both emc0320GB

1905. With just a few days to view the maps prepared in Nevada, there are obvious errors - areas of salt desert shrub vegetation 

that are identified as sage-grouse habitat. To my knowledge, there is no scientific literature that documents sage-grouse use 

of these areas, and certainly not as Priority Habitat. The work done locally in Elko County through the Northeastern Nevada 

Stewardship Group, Inc. (NNSG) includes over three million acres of on-the-ground assessments based on ecological sites. 

This information was available to the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and Elko District BLM and was not even 

considered in the mapping effort. The broad-scale mapping the agencies have used to identify sage-grouse habitat was 

conducted at a much coarser scale, with little or no ground-truthing. As such, the agencies' mapping effort is subject to 

errors and simplifications. These errors and simplifications can be addressed during baseline data collection, but only if the 

mapping effort is ongoing.

NVCA Both emc0322GB

1906. The agencies have been managing public lands in Nevada based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The 

emphasis of the NTT conservation measures is single-species management. There is a plethora of issues that affect 

sage-grouse and the conservation measures only address anthropogenic activities. Perhaps these measures should be 

considered as a last resort. The BLM and USFS must address noxious weeds, wildfires, pinyon-juniper encroachment, and 

other habitat issues before curtailing land uses. Diseases, hunting, predation, and other causes of direct mortality should be 

addressed before curtailing land uses.

NVCA Both emc0322GB

1907. Management of habitat for the greater sage-grouse occurs on a complex sagebrush dominated landscape with tremendous 

variability locally and range wide. It is ecologically impossible to regulate for improved sage-grouse performance with species 

specific regulatory measures. Local citizens working together to resolve local and site specific issues offers the best chance 

for success. Considerable work has already been accomplished at the local level in planning for improved vegetative 

management. To date the agencies have failed to implement the majority of these planning efforts. Agencies should prioritize 

and implement these measures before increasing regulatory control that often paralyzes needed action. Therefore, I strongly 

urge the agencies to recognize the benefits of livestock grazing to greater-sage grouse and to prioritize their focus on those 

issues that pose a real and specific threat to the greater sage-grouse and its habitat.

NVCA Both emc0304GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-393

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1908. There are a number of current federal, state, and local management and conservation measures to improve and protect 

sage-grouse habitat. Many of these have been in effect for a decade or more. The ongoing implementation of these measures 

should be evaluated in the No Action Alternative to provide the baseline against which all other alternatives are compared 

and measured. The EIS documents prepared for each sub-region must include a substantive and detailed analysis of the 

Continuation of Existing Conservation Measures/No Action Alternative. Specifically, this analysis should examine, in addition

to complete or better implementation of Manual 6840, the following potential outcomes that would result from the 

Continuation of Existing Conservation Measures/No Action Alternative:  Analyze the future, long-term habitat 

improvements that could occur with ongoing implementation of the existing greater sage-grouse habitat conservation 

measures in Nevada and elsewhere. o For example, data presented by the Nevada Department of Conservation at 

Governor Sandoval’s January 18th Stakeholder Update Meeting showed that the fall estimated population has been 

increasing since 2007, suggesting that the existing conservation measures are successfully improving sage grouse habitat. o 

This analysis must be reasonably specific on a regional, sub-regional, and even a local scale. The impacts of the No Action 

Alternative " and all other alternatives to be evaluated " may differ from state to state and between each BLM field area 

and/or district office and in each National Forest.

NVCA Both emc0321GB

1909. B. State Implementation Alternative The December 2011, Western Governors’ Wildlife Council (WGWC) Report to 

Governors entitled Inventory of Local and State Governments’ Conservation Initiatives for Sage Grouse documents the 

many state- and local- level sage-grouse conservation measures in place throughout the western U.S. and offers the following 

observations and findings: This inventory report provides a catalogue of management approaches implemented by state and 

local authorities, as well as by local partnerships committed to on-the-ground action to conserve sage-grouse and their 

habitat...This inventory demonstrates that sage-grouse habitat protection is active at state, regional and county levels. The 

data analysis indicates that state fish and wildlife agencies are rightly viewed as the primary authority for sage-grouse 

conservation, yet significant efforts are also being implemented under local government land use planning authorities. 

Partnerships through LWGs appear to enhance awareness of activities across the range of authority – from local, state and 

federal governments to private landowners. These partnerships are excellent examples which demonstrate the 

opportunities both state and local governments have for sage grouse conservation given their management authority. 

(WGWC Report, page 7). At least in Nevada, the observed increase in population levels since 2007 strongly suggests that 

the state and local conservation measures are having a positive impact. Consistent with the finding in the WGWC’s Report 

that conservation measures are best implemented by state and local authorities, the EIS should evaluate the impacts that 

would occur by leaving these programs intact and giving them additional resources to pursue habitat conservation 

opportunities. In light of the numerous sage-grouse habitat conservation measures currently in place in Nevada as well as 

in the other western states, the EIS must also explain the need for additional, federal level conservation measures. 

Additionally the EIS should examine whether there are any gaps in the state and local programs that could be filled if these 

programs had additional resources.

NVCA Both emc0321GB

1910. A. Nevada Specific Baseline Data • It appears that the Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Characterization Map prepared by 

NDOW is substantially incomplete and includes data that has not been field verified. The GIS datasets used to develop the 

habitat model utilize vegetation data generated from aerial photography and other unconfirmed or outdated sources. It is 

NVCA Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-394 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

recommended that a standalone baseline data report be prepared and included as an attachment to the EIS, which that 

discloses all of the field and data analysis methodologies used to characterize sage-grouse habitat, references to all source 

data used, surveyor and data manager qualifications, and dates and timing of surveys used to determine sage-grouse 

occupancy or lek status. The report should also include a statistical model that accounts for data efficiency, climate and 

seasonal variability as it relates to population densities, and relationship between vegetation composition and sage-grouse 

occurrence. • The scale of the NDOW maps that will be used to support the Nevada sub-region EIS are at a landscape 

scale, a scale NDOW noted should not be used at a project-level scale. Therefore, the Proposed Action in the EISs should 

not amend Land Use Management Plans or Forest Plans to exclude or limit project activities or multi-use activities based on 

the sage-grouse habitat identified in these maps without allowing for a project-level impact analysis at the District and Forest 

level.

1911. The map entitled "Nevada BLM and USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Preliminary Habitat Map" that BLM and USFS recently made 

available to the public was developed using satellite imagery data. Many NVMRA members have expertise in GIS mapping and 

the use and interpretation of satellite imagery data. Based on this expertise, we fmd this map to be technically flawed. The 

technical shortcomings of this map are described below. BLM and USFS must not proceed with this NEP A analysis until the 

agencies have an accurate habitat distribution map (Le., baseline data) upon which to base the analysis.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1912. During the March 9,2012 meeting of the Governor's Sage Grouse Task Force in Sparks, Nevada, NDOW, BLM and others 

involved with developing the maps provided infonnation on the data used to develop the maps. As described at this meeting, 

the NDOW map is based largely on a synthesis of several sets of Landsat imagery data that date back to 2001 to 2005. 

Although more recent and up to date Landsat data are readily available, they were not used to prepare the NDOW habitat 

map.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1913. BLM and USFS should not proceed with the NEP A analysis until new maps that use current data are developed. Data that 

is more than a decade old is not the best available information and as such does not meet the "Best Available Scientific Data" 

standard that is mandated by Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA") at 16 U.S.C. § 1533. Because this 

section of the ESA requires the Secretary of the Interior to use best available scientific data to detennine whether to list a 

species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary must similarly use best available scientific data when detennining how to 

manage public lands to protect a candidate species like the greater sage-grouse.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1914. NEP A places a similar demand upon federal agencies to use reliable scientific data. Under NEP A, the BLM must ensure the 

scientific integrity of the discussions and analyses in its environmental impact statements. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. Environmental 

infonnation used in making decisions under NEPA "must be of high quality" and "[a]ccurate scientific analysis" is essential to 

implementing NEPA. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). NEPA mandates scientific and professional integrity. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24. 

Accurate scientific evidence is essential to an EIS and an agency cannot rely on "stale" scientific evidence." City 0/ 

Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U. S. Dept. o/Transp., 123 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted).

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1915. The resolution of the satellite imagery data used to prepare the BLM-USFS Greater SageGrouse Preliminary Habitat Map is 

too coarse for the ultimate use of this map. BLM and USFS are proposing to use this landscape-scale map to make decisions 

that will affect project-scale activities and uses of public lands - including withdrawing lands from mineral entry. The coarse 

scale of this map is thus incongruent with the scope of the decisions that will be made using this map and the much fmer scale 

NVCA Both emc0327GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-395

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

projects that will be affected by these decisions.

1916. It must be emphasized that better data are available and BLM must obtain and use better data. For example, current Landsat 

satellite imagery would be a much more reliable snapshot of where likely sage brush communities are located than the 

outdated (circa 2001 - 2005) data that suggest sage brush are growing in areas that burned during wildfires that occurred 

after the Landsat data were collected. Secondly, helicopter and fixed-wing aerial surveys could be used to obtain data that 

would be more accurate and on a finer, more appropriate scale than relying mainly on satellite data that has a resolution that 

is too coarse for the intended use of the data. Finally, on-the-ground surveys should be perfonned to collect current and 

direct-observation data that can be used to field check, verify, and calibrate data collected remotely (Le., from satellite 

imagery or aerial surveys). BLM and USFS cannot justify using the current habitat map because it is based on the only data 

they used when better data could be obtained in a reasonable and timely manner.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1917. At the above-described March 9th meeting of the Governor's Sage Grouse Task Force, staff involved with the preparation 

of the NDOW habitat map upon which the BLM-USFS map is based revealed that they have only a 40 percent confidence 

level in the habitat areas shown on the map for western Nevada. They stated that they have a higher confidence level in some 

of the habitat areas in parts of eastern Nevada where the Ely District Office of BLM has perfonned field surveys.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1918. There can be no doubt that field surveys are the most reliable way to collect accurate data on the location, nature, and 

extent of greater sage-grouse habitat. Given the importance of the land use decisions that BLM will be making and the 

profound and widespread economic implications of these decisions, BLM must base its decisions on field data which would 

satisfy the best available data standard. BLM's proposed use of a map that was made using outdated, coarse-resolution data 

with little or no field verification will lead to flawed EIS documents and ultimately to bad land use decisions. It is absolutely 

critical that more field data be collected before BLM and USFS proceed with preparing the EIS documents.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1919. The current recommendations in the NIT Report - especially the proposal to withdraw lands with sage-grouse habitat from 

mineral entry - create a resource conflict. The multiple-use mandates in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

("FLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq and the specific FLPMA directive to provide for the Nation's need for domestic sources 

of minerals and other commodities demand a thoughtful resolution of this resource conflict.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1920. The land withdrawal proposed in the NTT Report also conflicts with several laws governing national forest system lands 

including the Organic Act of 1897, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield 

Act of 1960 (herein after collectively referred to as "USFS laws"). For example, Section 531 of the Multiple Use and Sustained 

Yield Act requires that the national forests be managed to achieve "harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources". Clearly, withdrawing national forest lands from operation of the Mining Law in preference for sage grouse 

habitat conservation does not achieve "harmonious or coordinated" management of these lands.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

1921. Continuation of Existing Management and Conservation Measures - (The No Action Alternative) - Must Be Thoroughly 

Evaluated The continuation of existing management and conservation measures and existing regulatory policies including the 

directives in BLM Manual 6840 define the No Action Alternative. As is the case for all NEPA documents, the No Action 

Alternative provides the baseline against which all other alternatives must be compared and measured. The No Action 

Alternative analysis in each sub-regional EIS should quantify the impacts associated with ongoing implementation of the many 

NVCA Both emc0335GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-396 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

existing local, state, and federal conservation measures and the existing BLM and USFS policies to protect sage-grouse 

habitat. Some of the impacts that could result from continuation of the existing regulatory framework and conservation 

measures that should be evaluated in the EIS documents include the following:

1922. The land use restrictions, prohibitions and withdrawals recommended in the NTT Report will significantly curtail project 

development and thwart a broad range of uses on public lands. The impact of these restrictions on mineral exploration and 

development is especially harsh because the NTT Report proposes to withdraw lands with high-priority sage-grouse habitat 

from mineral entry. Taken at face value, this suggests that all of the areas shown in magenta on the BLMUSFS map entitled 

"Nevada BLM and USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Preliminary Habitat Map" will no longer be open to exploration and 

development. If this happens, Nevada's mineral industry will grind to a halt because the magenta areas on the BLM-USFS 

habitat map contain most of Nevada's hardrock mineral resources. Clearly, this is an unacceptable outcome that would 

create serious financial hardship for the State of Nevada - especially in northern Washoe, Humboldt, Lander, Eureka, Elko, 

White Pine, eastern Churchill, northern Nye, and northern Lincoln counties.

NVCA Both emc0335GB

1923. Eureka Moly hopes that BLM and USFS will work with the State of Nevada, Nevada counties, and other stakeholders to find 

a better approach to protecting sage-grouse habitat - one that recognizes it is not necessary to put vast areas of lands off 

limits to mineral development in order to achieve sage-grouse habitat conservation. The sage-grouse mitigation measures 

that Eureka Moly has designed for the Mount Hope Project are proof that mineral development and sagegrouse habitat 

conservation can and must co-exist.

NVCA Both emc0335GB

1924. BLM and USFS will be using the map entitled "Nevada BLM and USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Preliminary Habitat Map" to make 

critically important decisions about how public lands in Nevada will be currently managed. This map is currently being used 

to implement the Interim Management Policies and Procedures in IM 2012-043. It will be used as baseline data defining the 

Affected Environment for the EIS documents and for analyzing Environmental Consequences and Cumulative Impacts. VGC 

hopes that a more refined and accurate map will result from the EIS. It seems clear from the following disclaimer on the 

BLM-USFS map that it is not adequate to use as baseline data for the EIS documents:"No warranty is made by the Bureau of 

Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other 

data." As such, this map would not satisfy the data adequacy standards that BLM and USFS would typically demand from a 

private-sector project proponent before the agencies would begin a NEPA analysis for a proposed private-sector project. As 

proponents for the Proposed Action to implement new sage-grouse conservation measures, BLM and USFS should be held 

to the same baseline data adequacy standards that would be applicable to a private-sector Proposed Action.

NVCA Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

1925. There can be no doubt that field surveys would be the most reliable way to collect accurate data on the location, nature, and 

extent of greater sage-grouse habitat. Data collected in the field would also provide some measure of calibration for habitat 

areas on the BLM-USFS map that are based mainly on satellite imagery data, where no on-the-ground data have been 

collected. BLM and USFS should not proceed with the NEP A analysis until the habitat map can be calibrated and verified with 

data collected in the field.

NVCA Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

1926. With the action taken to implement the obligations of Instruction Memorandum 2012-043, we would like to see the detailed 

explanation of the resource management monitoring to take place using the requirement to "complete habitat 

inventories/assessments using the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework in a timely manner so that data are available 

NVCA Both rmc0058GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-397

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

for consideration in livestock grazing permit renewals and other management decisions. " How do these inventories and 

assessments differ from the monitoring and evaluations of Healthy Rangelands as documented in "Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health" (Technical Reference 1734- 6)? Will different systems be used for monitoring rangelands, depending on 

whether they

1927. Under the "Policy/Action" Section there is a statement specific to development of the preliminary priority and general 

habitat maps that states, "These science-based maps were developed using the best available data and may change as new 

information becomes available. Such changes would be science-based and coordinated with state wildlife agencies so that the 

resulting delineation of PPH and PGH provides for sustainable populations." In most cases, at least in Nevada, these 

preliminary maps have not been released, nor have they been vetted through local working groups. The Board strongly 

recommends a process within the PElS procedure that provides such a vetting process. Simply stated, the best available 

information is at the local level and there are huge gaps in the "science base" due to the magnitude of sage-grouse range.

NVCA Both rmc0050GB

1928. In our experience, managing for a single species almost always results in failure. The focus of federal land management 

agencies on singlespecies management has likely resulted in many of the issues we are facing now. Further, single species

management is in direct violation ofthe Federal land Policy and Management Act (FlPMA) (1976). FLPMA requires the 

following regarding the development and revision of land Use Plans (FlPMA 1976): (c) In the development and revision of 

land use plans, the Secretary shall- (l) use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and 

other applicable law; (2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of phySical, 

biological, economic, and other sciences; Single species management does not offer the required interdisciplinary approach

NVCA Both fxc0010GB

1929. Many strategies have been identified and implemented in Nevada and other western states in the last few years to Improve 

sage grouse habitat. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to monitor the success (or failure) of the recently-implemented changes 

rather than develop reactionary strategies that ultimately may not even be needed. Plant communities respond slowly to 

chang@. Mapping or habitat Inventory projects to determine the actual condition of sagebrush habitat across the west 

seems to be the most logical place to start, otherwise recommendations are being developed blindly.

NVCA Both fxc0010gb

1930. Have there been studies to follow these birds from chicks through to adulthood to prove that they are dying from lack of 

'good' habitat or that predators may be the bigger culprit of this mortality? We do not see any mention of looking into 

predator control: only that livestock grazing has to be manipulated. We understand that predators are not the BLM or USFS' 

responsibility, but the IM does discuss that, "coordination with respective state wildlife agency" needs to be done, but again 

only focuses on habitat. Also, from the March 21, 2012 Elko County Wildlife Advisory Board meeting we realize that the 

Nevada Department of Wildlife's main concern is habitat as well, not hunting or predation. We feel the BLM needs to look 

at predation as more of a threat to the sage grouse and include predator management in the IM.

NVCA Both fxc0014GB

1931. Focusing only on livestock management seems to demonstrate the want to remove livestock from public ground. Why only 

change land use plans and not address predator problems or hunting issues? We strongly disagree with changing land use 

plans when there is no data to prove that it will help bird numbers.

NVCA Both fxc0014GB

1932. BLM and the Forest must make sure that all affected Plans are included. This includes Bishop, the Modoc Forest that manages 

the Clear Lake Grouse population habitats, and any others that may not be included.

NVCA Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-398 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1933. The NTT’s Goals are inadequate. For example: "Maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by 

conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other 

conservation partners" is woefully inadequate. BLM must significantly increase abundance and distribution, and state specific 

goals and time frames to achieve this. These goals must be based full consideration of the current status of habitats for each 

population. And BLM must, of course, conserve, enhance, and restore habitats and populations. The Core and Priority 

schemes will not allow this to occur. This habitat segregation immediately chops off critically important habitats, including in 

areas of Idaho and Nevada where there has already been so much sage-grouse and sagebrush loss. The Idaho model (and 

map that accompanied the BLM IM) completely excludes large areas identified as very important for conservation over the 

past seven years under the Idaho Sage-grouse Plan. Habitats essential for birds to move over the landscape and even entire 

seasonally important habitats are not included in the Priority habitat. See Nevada discussion - where even "moderate" 

importance and "transitional" habitats are excluded from the Priority scheme. BLM must conserve, enhance and restore -

not just maybe, perhaps, sometimes, do one of the above a little bit, "where appropriate."

NVCA Both emc0411GB

1934. Federal agencies must make a determination that habitat is irreplaceable. We commend the mapping effort by NDOW for 

using this term. But don't sage-grouse, really, require much larger blocks of habitat especially in the central and southern 

Great Basin area than is shown as Irreplaceable on the Nevada map? The Core and “Priority” schemes really place no lands 

off-limits. The NTT, for example, is based on no habitat being off-limits to 3% additional development, i.e. there is no 

irreplaceable habitat – and any place can be developed under this greatly flawed scheme.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

1935. I live in the Eastern Sierra, and there is sage-grouse habitat only a few miles from where I live. I have hiked in that area, and 

have not seen or heard a single grouse. I'm told they are there. But a local airport has been expanding there, skirting and 

sometimes simply flouting environmental regulations, and they get a slap on the wrist when they do. The protections need 

to be stronger, and to be enforced, or I am certain the the future of the sage-grouse is grim (if it is not too late here, already.)

NVCA Both fld0004rm, 

fld0004gb

1936. Oregon has the strictesy land use laws in the nation. Thirty six oregon counties have individual county plans protecting 

their resources and residents. This seems to be duplicitous and unneccessary for the state. We will remain engaged in the 

process. One size does not fit all. Work with Oregon.

OR Both cfc0033GB

1937. Sage-grouse in Oregon are Oregon Bird Regulated in hunting by Oregon Fish and Game. On private land by the landowner, 

they protect and hold them as apart of there property to protect and control for the next generation. There is no rerason 

for changing to (Endangered) with the numbers that we have now.

OR Both cfc0052GB

1938. Furthermore, the ODFW strategy was part of the state and local regulatory mechanisms that FWS found to be inadequate 

when they found the sage grouse was warranted for listing.

OR Both emc0078GB

1939. The Department also supports a BLM decision to consider Preliminary Priority Habitat to be synonymous with the Core 

Areas identified in the GSCAS and that Preliminary General Habitat will include all remaining occupied sage-grouse habitat 

in Oregon within their CUllent distribution, including the Low Density areas identified in the GSCAS.

OR Both emc0088GB

1940. Since this was a joint scoping effort with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) the Department submits the following comments for 

National Forest (NF) lands. To the Department's knowledge, the Malheur NF is currently the only NF recognized in this 

process to provide sage-grouse habitat in Oregon. However, there is also occupied sage-grouse habitat on the Deschutes 

(Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District (RD)), Fremont (Lalceview RD and occasionally Silver Lalce RD), Ochoco, and 

OR Both emc0088GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-399

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Wallowa-Whitman NFs. Most of these occupied areas are relatively small but are important for meeting a portion of the 

annual life history needs of sage-grouse. These sites are also important because most occur on the periphery of the extant 

range of sage-grouse in Oregon. The Department encourages the USFS to implement the conservation guidelines in the 

April 2011 GSCAS on all NF lands occupied by sage-grouse.

1941. If sage-grouse conservation measures are incorporated into the RMPs it will be a very positive step for the long-term 

conservation of sage-grouse. The Department remains committed to assisting BLM with their range-wide sage-grouse 

planning process in any way practical. Should the BLM need the Department's expertise or support, please do not hesitate 

to contact me or my staff

OR Both emc0088GB

1942. In response to BLM's recent scoping and infonnation meetings for the 10 Resource Management Plans (RMPs) within 4 BLM 

districts in Oregon, the Department encourages BLM to incorporate, at a minimum, the sage-grouse conservation guidelines

identified in the April 2011 Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategx for Oregon (GSCAS).

OR Both emc0088GB

1943. The Department also supports a BLM decision to consider Preliminary Priority Habitat to be synonymous with the Core 

Areas identified in the GSCAS and that Preliminary General Habitat will include all remaining occupied sage-grouse habitat 

in Oregon within their CUllent distribution, including the Low Density areas identified in the GSCAS.

OR Both emc0088GB

1944. Since this was a joint scoping effort with the u.S. Forest Service (USFS) the Department submits the following comments for 

National Forest (NF) lands. To the Department's knowledge, the Malheur NF is currently the only NF recognized in this 

process to provide sage-grouse habitat in Oregon. However, there is also occupied sage-grouse habitat on the Deschutes 

(Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District (RD)), Fremont (Lalceview RD and occasionally Silver Lalce RD), Ochoco, and 

Wallowa-Whitman NFs. Most of these occupied areas are relatively small but are important for meeting a portion ofthe 

annual life history needs of sage-grouse. These sites are also important because most occur on the periphery of the extant 

range of sage-grouse in Oregon. The Department encourages the USFS to implement the conservation guidelines in the 

April 2011 GSCAS on all NF lands occupied by sage-grouse.

OR Both emc0088GB

1945. If sage-grouse conservation measures are incorporated into the RMPs it will be a very positive step for the long-term 

conservation of sage-grouse. The Department remains committed to assisting BLM with their range-wide sage-grouse 

planning process in any way practical. Should the BLM need the Department's expertise or support, please do not hesitate 

to contact me or my staff.

OR Both emc0088GB

1946. The BLM/USFS are reminded that Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) completed and adopted in 2011 a 5 year 

sage‐grouse management plan update for habitat areas within the State of Oregon and that the conversation and regulatory 

measures identified within that recently issued plan should largely suffice the guidance needs of Oregon BLM/USFS without 

the need of imposition of further practices or regulatory measures.

OR Both emc0129GB

1947. Formalized planning for and delivering sage‐grouse habitat conservation in Oregon is an ongoing process and has been for 

the last 10 years. Leadership for this process is provided by a state‐level working group as well as local implementation 

teams. Membership in these groups is purposefully diverse, and the overall effort has broad‐based buy‐in from wildlife and 

range managers, the livestock industry, academic interests, state and federal agencies, and a variety of non‐governmental 

conservation groups. We believe that using the preceding approach will allow BLM and USFS to define sage‐grouse habitat 

OR Both emc0192GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-400 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

management priorities and actions in an ecologically defensible manner that compliments existing State of Oregon 

conservation efforts without creating new layers of bureaucracy or compliance. Additionally, this approach lends itself to 

adaptive management by allowing practitioners to incorporate new information into the models as it becomes available.

1948. We suggest developing the concepts proposed above in partnership with BLM, USFS, the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, state and local sage‐grouse working groups, and county governments in the region.

OR Both emc0192GB

1949. Malhcur County Court mainta ins a status as a coordinating and cooperating agency. We look fo rward to being fully engaged 

in the development ora Western Region Sage Grouse Management EIS in order to provide input regarding Malheur Coullty's 

diverse habit •.I IS and multiple-uscs on fede ral lands

OR Both emc0136GB

1950. Oregon Department of Fi sh and Wildlife (ODPW) recognized in the Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation Plan that land use 

pl<UUlcrs and managers may need to consider recommendations to protect sage grouse populations wi th in the context of 

social-econom ic issues o rlhe respective governmental bodies. The intent of the Oregon Sage Grouse Conservation Plan is 

to inform decision-makers regarding the biological consequences of various actions on sage grouse. but not to dictate land 

management decision. We support their plan and work in many ways and hope to cooperate wi th BLM to prepare the 

federal EIS and identify workable, feas ible. and common sense approachcs to address the environmental impacts 10 sage 

grouse habitat.

OR Both emc0136GB

1951. The cu rrent draft Baker Resource Management Plan should be examined in Oregon as insufficient where the BLM has 

created a correlation between inventory data from 1977 to the newer Standards of Rangeland Health standards. Admission 

that the SRI I assessments are not finished across the District makes such a comparison a sign ofinadequatc infonnation for 

plalUling and decisions. BLM must at some point conduct current and relevant information that has a level of confidence in 

order to comply with the Illultiple land use objectives.

OR Both emc0136GB

1952. We appreciate the opportunity lo submit comments du ring th is seoping period ror the Western Region Sage Grollse EIS 

and look fo rward to coordi nating and cooperating with the BLM to develop a plan ror the Malheur CoulllY area.

OR Both emc0136GB

1953. Sage-grouse occur on a Fruit Growers complex sagebrush-dominated landscape with tremendous variability locally andrange 

wide. Because ofthis variability, it is irresponsible and counterproductive to use a "one-size-fits-all" set of regulatory 

measures for improved sage-grouse performance. For the National Sage-Grouse Strategy to be successful, it is essential that 

it allow for reoional and site-specific approaches to conserving sage-grouse and habitat, incorporating expertise of local 

land-users and experts such as ranchers and locally knowledgeable range scientists

OR Both emc0221GB

1954. In the state of Oregon, a thorough strategy for sage-grouse conservation based on best available science has already been 

developed. In April 2011, the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW) revised the state's Greater Sage-Grouse

Conservation Assessment and Strategy ("Plan"). In this report, guidance specifically tailored to conserving the sage-grouse 

populations in Oregon was developed with a view to maximizing the success of conservation efforts.

OR Both emc0221GB

1955. hhe Oregon Plan has very recently been updated so amending land use plans in r Oregon according to an additional new set 

of regulatory standards would not only i be impractical, but would ignore the local expertise used in the plan. This would I 

result in making sage-grouse conservation efforts in Oregon less appropriate and specific to sage-grouse populations and 

habitats in our state. This also results in an additional set of national regulatory standards that are different from the 

OR Both emc0221GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-401

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

standards established by ODFW, unnecessarily complicating sage-grouse management, and representing a failure on BLM's 

part to partner with the state agency entrusted with the management of the grouse. For this reason, it is critical that any 

amendments to land use plans be guided explicitly by the Oregon SageGrouse Plan, and that the Plan be adopted as the 

preferred alternative in any EIS or SEIS for land use plans in Oregon.

1956. In 2011 the Oregon Depa1iment ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW) published a report related to greater sage-grouse and their 

habitat. The title of this document is the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy of Oregon: A Plan to 

Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. This document appears to be very thorough in addressing the history, life 

cycle and habitat needs of greater sage-grouse in Oregon. The report also appears to identify various issues or land 

management actions that have likely impacted the overall greater sage-grouse populations in Oregon. Included in the report 

are recommendations for what ODFW believe can be done to improve overall greater sage-grouse habitat and population 

numbers. The concern that ODOT has is with how the ODFW recommendations or similar recommendations could be 

interpreted and subsequently implemented by the BLM / USFS for federal lands in Oregon. The ODFW report also states, 

"ODFW recognizes that land use planners and managers may need to consider these recommendations within the context 

of social-economic issues and decisions that are the responsibility of the respective government bodies."

OR Both emc0155GB

1957. As mentioned in the BLM news letter, (National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy, Issue No. 1, Dec. 2011) in the Next 

Steps paragraph, some BLM Resource Areas are already developing and implementing land management strategies for 

greater sage-grouse. That is the case here in Oregon, with the Baker District Draft RMP - EIS which is out for review and 

comment at this time. Most of the altematives that were evaluated, and specifically the preferred altemative, appear to 

contain recommendations that are substantially similar to those contained in the ODFW plan. In reviewing both the ODFW 

plan and the Draft Baker RMP, it appears that the ODFW recommendations may have been interpreted and implemented to 

a more restrictive threshold potentially creating adverse impacts on the other beneficial land use categories. ODOT has 

provided specific comments and concems to the BLM on the Draft Baker RMP. In addition to the Baker District Draft RMP, 

the ODFW plan states that the recommended "70/30" strategy (70% protection / 30% rehabilitation) has already been 

adopted by the BLM in the Southeast Oregon RMP.

OR Both emc0155GB

1958. In addition, Defenders is working within the state of Oregon to advocate for a landscape level approach to planning for 

development in sage-grouse range. Landscape-level planning can provide a forum for balancing the need for siting of new 

energy development and transmission facilities with wildlife needs and other conservation values. Geographic information 

systems technology and computer models allow evaluation of alternative future scenarios and assessment of cumulative 

effects. These planning efforts, conducted on a regional scale, would provide the basis for development of a decision support

tool that provides geographic priorities to guide and inform siting decisions at the state, federal and local levels. Siting 

priorities should balance the need for renewable energy and other development with the needs of wildlife and local 

communities, and represent a shared vision for long-term conservation of natural resources. We encourage the adoption of 

a landscape approach to mitigation in the state of Oregon and by BLM and FS through this planning process. Such an 

approach should be based on conservation priorities and provide more efficient and effective options to offset impacts of 

permitted development.

OR Both emc0339GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-402 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1959. Because the Oregon Plan has very recently been updated, amending land use plans in Oregon according to a different set of 

regulatory standards would not only represent a senseless waste ofresources and local expertise, it would by necessity make 

sage-grouse conservation efforts in Oregon less appropriate and specific to sage-grouse populations and habitats in our 

state. Moreover, introducing an additional set of national regulatory standards that are different from the standards 

established by ODFW would unnecessarily complicate sage-grouse management, and represent a failure on BLM's part to 

partner with the state agency entrusted with the management of the grouse. For this reason, it is critical that any 

amendments to land use plans be guided explicitly by the Oregon Sage-Grouse Plan, and that the Plan be adopted as the 

preferred alternative in any EIS or SEIS for land use plans in Oregon.

OR Both emc0315GB

1960. In conjunction with the above, OSGA encourages the agency to recognize that Oregon has already developed a Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy based on the best available science. This strategy recognizes that 

well-managed grazing is compatible with sage-grouse conservation. OSGA strongly encourages the agency to adopt 

Oregon's strategy, which is specifically tailored to specific habitat and sage-grouse populations in our state. as the preferred 

alternative in any EIS or SEIS for land use plans in Oregon.

OR Both emc0309GB

1961. It is also important to recognize the efforts being made through the Oregon Technical Advisory Committee (OTAC) and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in promoting and advocating for the Working Lands for Wildlife 

partnership. This partnership is an effort to use innovative approaches with farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to 

restore and protect the habitats for wildlife species whose management needs are compatible with sustainable agricultural 

practices and whose decline can be reversed with the help of private landowners. The species initially selected for this 

campaign included the sage-grouse. Working Lands for Wildlife strategically targets funding from the popular Wildlife 

Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) administered by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to 

demonstrate that productive working lands are compatible with the needs of at-risk species. In addition to providing 

landowners with financial assistance for voluntarily implementing habitat improvements on their lands, the NRCS and 

Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will jointly prepare species recovery tools such as informal agreements, safe harbor 

agreements and habitat conservation plans that will give landowners more regulatory predictability about the effects of their 

actions on these at-risk species. In Oregon, Working Lands for Wildlife funding will enhance ongoing conservation efforts of 

the Sage-Grouse Initiative. NRCS, along with producers, has been working at the local, state and national levels on behalf of 

voluntary sage-grouse conservation and this partnership will help to intensify those efforts. Federal, state and local wildlife 

experts and stakeholders in Oregon have collaborated to identify where to work and what to do to maximize biological 

benefits to sage-grouse. Using the best available science, the partners have prioritized restoration actions with 

corresponding core habitat areas.

OR Both emc0341GB

1962. Sage-grouse occur on a complex sagebrush-dominated landscape with tremendous variability locally and range wide. It is 

ecologically impossible to regulate for improved sage-grouse performance with a "one-size-fits-all" set of regulatory 

measures. For the National Sage-Grouse Strategy to be successful, it is essential that it allow for regional and site-specific 

approaches to conserving sage-grouse and habitat, incorporating expertise of local land-users and experts such as ranchers 

and locally knowledgeable range scientists.

OR Both rmc0078GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-403

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1963. In the state of Oregon, a thorough strategy for sage-grouse conservation based on best available science has already been 

developed. In April 2011, the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW) revised the state's Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy (henceforth the "Plan"). In this report, guidance specifically tailored to conserving the 

sage-grouse populations in Oregon was developed with a view to maximizing the success of conservation efforts. The 

report's author, ODFW sage-grouse lead Christian Hagen (also a member of the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team) 

made explicit in the Plan's executive summary that well-managed grazing is compatible with sage-grouse conservation, 

stating: This Plan recognizes that livestock ranching operations which manage for ecologically sustainable native rangelands is 

compatible with sage-grouse conservation, and necessary management activities to maintain a sustainable ranchjng operation 

are not considered "development actions" under the application of the Mitigation Policy to sage-grouse habitat. -Greater 

Sage-Grouse Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat, p. viii, April, 

2011 . Because the Oregon Plan has very recently been updated, amending land use plans in Oregon according to a di fferent 

set of regulatory standards would not only represent a senseless waste of resources and local expertise, it would by 

necessity make sage-grouse conservation efforts in Oregon less appropriate and specific to sage-grouse populations and 

habitats in our state. Moreover, introducing an additional set of national regulatory standards that are different from the 

standards established by ODFW would unnecessarily complicate sage-grouse management, and represent a failure on BLM's 

part to partner with the state agency entrusted with the management of the grouse. For this reason, it is critical that any 

amendments to land use plans be guided explicitly by the Oregon Sage-Grouse Plan, and that the Plan be adopted as the

preferred alternative in any EIS or SEIS for land use plans in Oregon.

OR Both rmc0078GB

1964. Oregon land use plans must be based on a strong conservation strategy to help provide recovery of sage-grouse, not simply 

baseline survival. An effective strategy must be based on sound and defensible science, and complement and bolster other 

state and federal policies. The goals of land use plan revisions by the BLM should be obtainable and meet the overarching 

objectives with mechanisms to enforce and implement land use plan revisions to achieve goals.

OR Both emc0385GB

1965. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“USFWS”) 2003 Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (“PECE”) provides 

guidance to Service personnel to use in determining whether an adopted or implemented conservation effort contributes to 

making listing a species unnecessary or contributes to forming a basis for down-listing a species endangered to threatened. 

The ODFW plan identifies its deficiency in meeting PECE by stating, “The USFWS 2010 ‘warranted but precluded’ finding 

determined that current regulatory mechanisms, including those administered through local governments (County), state, 

and federal land management agencies, were insufficient to conserve sage-grouse populations, primarily with regard to 

habitat loss and fragmentation.” (at page 119). Sage-grouse will become a listed species under the Endangered Species Act if 

the BLM does not take steps to meet the PECE requirements and create policies which will result in species recovery.

OR Both emc0385GB

1966. We realize that Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy will require time, cooperation, and information sharing. All of the 

undersigned groups hope to be a part of the solution to conserve and restore sage-grouse habitat in Oregon. The attached 

comments to the West-wide scoping, along with a full conservation alternative that we hope BLM will use in planning, fully 

articulate our position and outline the issues that should be addressed in upcoming analysis by BLM. In summary, we ask that 

BLM:

OR Both emc0385GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-404 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1967. Cooperate with other agencies: BLM should fully engage and consult with state agencies and the USFWS throughout the EIS 

process.

OR Both emc0385GB

1968. Use Sound Science: Employ science-based decision making and use the latest scientific sources including, but not limited to, 

the 2010 USFWS 12-month findings, the Studies in Avian Biology sage-grouse monograph, and the National Technical 

Team’s report.

OR Both emc0385GB

1969. Generate Reasonable Alternatives: Create action alternatives in EIS analysis that advance sage-grouse conservation and 

establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to prevent the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the ESA. 

Alternatives must adopt adequate baseline protections including the following: 1) directing development toward areas with 

low conflicts with sage-grouse conservation, 2) full, permanent protections for priority contiguous habitat, 3) stringent 

protections or effective mitigation for other key habitat if some development might be allowed, 4) designation of Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern and assurances that they will be managed appropriately and 5) baseline protections for 

priority and general habitat.

OR Both emc0385GB

1970. Create Mitigation Requirements: BLM should apply habitat mitigation actions in descending order of preference: avoidance, 

minimization, rectification, reduction, and compensation. The goal should be a net benefit to sage-grouse. When 

compensation is used for mitigation, BLM should ensure that compensation is spent on effective mitigation measures, applied 

on the landscape scale, to sage-grouse habitat that is similar or greater in value than the lost habitat services. Ongoing 

stewardship, monitoring, and adaptive management will be necessary to ensure that compensatory mitigation is effective.

OR Both emc0385GB

1971. A clear framework must be established that triggers mitigation by avoidance –i.e. not claiming that building a project in 

important occupied habitats can be mitigated.

OR Both emc0411GB

1972. In the state of Oregon, a thorough strategy for sage-grouse conservation based on best available science has already been 

developed. In April 2011, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) revised the state’s Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy (henceforth the “Plan”). In this report, guidance specifically tailored to conserving 

the sagegrouse populations in Oregon was developed with a view to maximizing the success of conservation efforts. The 

report’s author, ODFW sage-grouse lead Christian Hagen (also a member of the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team) 

made explicit in the Plan’s executive summary that well-managed grazing is compatible with sage-grouse conservation, 

stating: This Plan recognizes that livestock ranching operations which manage for ecologically sustainable native rangelands is 

compatible with sage-grouse conservation, and necessary management activities to maintain a sustainable ranching operation 

are not considered “development actions” under the application of the Mitigation Policy to sage-grouse habitat. –Greater 

Sage-Grouse Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat, p. viii, April, 

2011. Because the Oregon Plan has very recently been updated, amending land use plans in Oregon according to a different 

set of regulatory standards would not only represent a senseless waste of resources and local expertise, it would by 

necessity make sage-grouse conservation efforts in Oregon less appropriate and specific to sage-grouse populations and 

habitats in our state. Moreover, introducing an additional set of national regulatory standards that are different from the 

standards established by ODFW would unnecessarily complicate sage-grouse management, and represent a failure on BLM’s 

part to partner with the state agency entrusted with the management of the grouse. For this reason, it is critical that any 

amendments to land use plans be guided explicitly by the Oregon Sage-Grouse Plan, and that the Plan be adopted as the

OR Both fli0000gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-405

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

preferred alternative in any EIS or SEIS for land use plans in Oregon.

1973. This letter concerns the Greater Sage Grouse as being considered in anticipation of the completion of a dam and reservoir 

referred as to the Narrows Project. Manti City actively encouraging the review of the FEIS regarding the Sage Grouse as 

addressed in anticipation of the arrows Project.

UT Both rmc0045GB

1974. A considerable portion of the economy of Manti City is dependent on agricultural endeavors. The farmers and ranchers in 

Manti rely on the forest as well as BLM lands for grazing if they are to remain a viable part of our local economy. In the course 

of developing a plan we certainly encourage the idea of a cooperative management strategy that would account for those 

farmers and ranchers use grazing permits in the study areas.

UT Both rmc0045GB

1975. Manti City has been advised of the considerable efforts being done in Utah through the Utah Greater Sage Grouse Project 

Management Plan Committee. This Committee has effectively undertaken projects to implement the BLM National Sage 

Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy and we strongly suggest that the work of this Committee as published through the 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources be taken into consideration in your scoping and any PA process.

UT Both rmc0045GB

1976. With the considerable assistance of both the Sage Grouse Strategic Plan Committee and the work done by Utah State 

University in research and documenting impacts on the Greater Sage Grouse Manti feels that with those local plans there has 

been a great amount of effort to maintain local control and local input in regards to the Greater Sage Grouse and the Sage 

Grouse Habitat management within our area. We respectfully request continued support of these local conservation efforts 

through following the local management plans.

UT Both rmc0045GB

1977. American farmers and ranchers provide the safest, most wholesome and affordable food available in the world today. 

America's natural resources, including the public lands of the Western United States, allow some two million food producers 

to feed more that 300 million Americans and another 150 million of our global neighbors. Managing the federal lands under 

the congressionally multiple use mandate is good for Utah and good for America. Multiple use and responsible stewardship 

are NOT opposing forces. With fully two-thirds of Utah controlled by federal agencies. the combination of private lands, 

public lands, water rights and unique livestock genetics developed over generations has allowed economically viable ranching 

operations.

UT Both rmc0003GB

1978. Fish & Wildlife Service -Identified Threats to Sage Grouse - Identifying agriculture, oil, gas and coal identified as being 

significant threats to Sage Grouse - BLM decisions could disrupt major sectors contributing to Utah's economy and quality 

of life. BLM has identified 47 million acres administered by the agency across the West as Greater Sage Grouse habitat. 

There is considerable overlap of Sage Grouse habitat. livestock grazing and energy development. The United States 

Congress and President have identified energy security as a national policy priority and the federally managed lands of the 

West have tremendous recognized oil, gas, oil shale and coal reserves as well as food production capacity. Farm Bureau 

requests that BLM and Forest Service to do a cost/benefit analysis of the tradeoffs to protecting Sage Grouse habitat and 

adverse regulatory impacts to food and energy production.

UT Both rmc0003GB

1979. Box Elder County is requesting cooperating agency status. UT Both rmc0023GB

1980. 1. Garfield County formally requests in the strongest terms that BLM and Forest ServIce immediately initiate government to 

government coordination with Garfield County regarding Sage Grouse Management Habitat. It is our understandmg that 

UT Both rmc0006GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-406 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

such coordination is required by existing law as authorized under NEPA, CEQ regulations, FLPMA, and NFMA.

1981. 2. We request that plans, programs and policies of the BLM and the US Forest Service In connection with management of 

Sage Grouse Habitat be consistent to the maximum extent allowed by law with the plan, programs and policies of Garfield 

County. 3. We request where the plans, programs and/or policies of the BLM and Forest Service are inconsistent with the 

plans, programs and policies of Garfield County, the federal agencies a) Detail the County's position b) Detail the conflict 

between the proposed decision and the local position c) List efforts made to resolve conflicts and d) Describe the reasons 

why the resolution was impossible.

UT Both rmc0006GB

1982. 4. We request joint lead agency status for those portions of the decisions that impact Garfield County, Utah. Garfield 

County is currently evaluating revisions to its Resource Management Plan associated with Sage Grouse Habitat. Established 

environmental law requires federal agencies to invite local state and tribal governments to participate in plan revisions as 

joint lead agencies in order to reduce duplication of effort and to resolve conflIcts at the beginning of the process. Federal 

agencies are also directed to offer those invitations at the earliest possible time. Garfield County asserts jurisdiction and

expertise in the areas of land management, rights of way, transportation maintenance and management, invasive species 

management, off Highway vehicle management, recreation opportunity spectrum analysis, recreation, social economics, 

custom, culture, and law enforcement. Garfield County is the only agency that has a Resource Management Plan which 

considers all lands in the County and is applicable to habitats which cross agency boundaries. 5. If joint lead agency status 

is not granted to Garfield County for lands within its jurisdiction, Garfield County respectfully requests cooperating agency 

status with a detailed expllanation of why joint lead agency status is not granted. Justification for cooperating agency status 

is justified under the same provisions of law as descnbed for joint lead agency status.

UT Both rmc0006GB

1983. Garfield County requests information as to why local, state and tribal governments were not offered joint lead agency and/or 

cooperating agency status at the earliest possible date as required by federal statute. Development of the bounds of the 

resource management evaluation is a key element in the decision making process. Notice in the Federal Register was 

undoubtedly contemplated prior to the actual notice, and avoiding contact wrth potential lead agencies, and cooperating 

agencies violates the spirit and letter of the law.

UT Both rmc0006GB

1984. Garfield County requests records, documents and evidence demonstrating that federal agencies have complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Specifically we request information regarding how the agencies have solicited the views of small 

affected entities like Garfield County and how the initial regulatory flexibility analysis was developed.

UT Both rmc0006GB

1985. Garfield County specifically requests that management strategies which improve habitat, range land health and species 

viability be given greater consideration than those management strategies which favor restrictive land use policies.

UT Both rmc0006GB

1986. Garfield County requests that the analysis consider impacts of conducting the Environmental Impact Statement on a ten 

state basis rather than on a resource area by resource area format. BLM units in Garfield County recently completed two 

Resource Management Plans. Each of those resource management plans considered management of Greater Sage Grouse 

Habitat. Garfield County believes that its resource management plan and the local BLM resource management plans provide 

the highest and best available science. Garfield County requests analysis of how a ten state process will provide better 

science for the impacted areas of Garfield County than do the local plans.

UT Both rmc0006GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-407

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1987. Garfield County requests a detailed explanation of how BLM and Forest Service staff intend to use established science rather 

than political pressure to determine a course of actoin that is applicable to ten Western states, a myriad of environmental 

conditions, and a wide variety of rangeland health, social, and economic considerations.

UT Both rmc0006GB

1988. In summary Garfield County is extremely concerned about the federal agencies' ability to comply with existing federal law as 

it relates to coordination, consistency, social and economic impacts, county and regional Sage Grouse populations, and 

balancing the human and natural environment. It is our experience that large, broad brush resource management actions are 

more influenced by political lobbying groups than by established science. Garfield County asserts that the analysis is not 

feasible on such a large scale and cannot be done meeting the requirements of existing law. Effort should be made to evaluate

and revise resource management plans for local BLM and Forest Service units. The only way a one-size-fits-all approach will 

work is if it is so broad and general that local land managers can adapt it to meet their specific needs. Such a scenario is 

equivalent to local management.

UT Both rmc0006GB

1989. Garfield County specifically requests discussions be initiated immediately between the BLM/Forest Service and Garfield 

County to develop a document authorizing joint lead or cooperating agency status. We believe that in order to comply with 

the earliest possible time requirements of federal law, those discussions must take place immediately - during the public 

comment period.

UT Both rmc0006GB

1990. Utah developed and effective, collaborative statewide management plan in 2009 that needs to be given a chance to succeed. UT Both fxc0004GB

1991. Parker Mountain sage-grouse populations are somewhat isolated from other populations in Utah and they inhabit a relatively 

small area. Consequently, actions that work in other areas may not be applicable here. Therefore, we recommend that 

rather than adopting general guidelines based upon national or state planning strategies, the Richfield District BLM Resource

Management Plan be amended to incorporate guidelines specific to Parker Mountain as determined by the Parker Mountain 

Working Group

UT Both rmc0042GB

1992. The local offices of the BLM, DWR, USF&W and county gov't have coordinated very hard to develop a sage-grouse plan for 

the Uintah Basin. Please consider their plan as a substitu or supplement to a federal plan.

UT Both cfc0013GB

1993. In our area, the State of Utah has studied Sage-Grouse habitat and implemented programs which have not only stabilized the 

Sage-Grouse population but has experience a sustained population growth.

UT Both emc0176GB

1994. The area between the Little Sahara Rec. area and the mountains to the north has been used for years by the OHV 

community. The trail density is quite high there. I really feel that this area would not be good habitat for Sage Grouse. The

even more alarming part is that there are not any Sage Grouse in the area, so I'm a bit confused as to why this area is even 

being considered.

UT Both emc0111GB

1995. From the West Desert working group (Tooele, Vernon, Ibapah, and environs) One of the group's members suggests that the 

Dugway Proving Grounds has developed recommendations for the management of golden eagles on Utah's West Desert. 

This may be of value since those efforts have included mapping and other work, which may be relevant for sage-grouse as the 

two species have a predator/prey relationship.

UT Both emc0405GB

1996. Because so many factors influence sage-grouse habitat quality, each of the four working groups I represent has stressed 

during meetings that there isa critical need for locally adaptable management strategies, which are informed by the local 

UT Both emc0405GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-408 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse conservation plan and the rexpertise within the local working groups./!Having adaptable plans that avoid 

one-size-fits-all vegetation management guidelines will allow sage-grouse conservation around Utah to address the most 

pressing concerns in any given area, using the most appropriate techniques. Although we recognize that flexibility means 

greater regulatory complexity, the working groups feel that it is critical to ensure that BLM staff in different areas, who 

grapple with different on-the-ground challenges for sage-grouse, are able to make appropriate management decisions based 

on local conditions

1997. Our organization wishes to be informed of land use planning efforts in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane or Washington Counties 

in southwestern Utah.

UT Both emc0386GB

1998. we are concerned that the listing will only bring about more regulations when what isneeded is action. UT Both emc0406GB

1999. We would like to remind people that are involved with the issue of trying to figure out how to help the sage grouse that it 

would be a good idea to take a real look at history and see what was done when populations were greatest.

UT Both emc0406GB

2000. The state specifically requests that the BLM fully analyze and explain the ability of the BLM and Forest Service to protect the 

species without the cooperation of other landowners, as discussed further below.

UT Both emc0337GB

2001. Sage grouse in Utah, while challenged, are hiologically stable. Utah conservation efforts are being conducted at a scale that 

will likely be hard to match anywhere else across the species' range. And, finally, the organizational and funding mechanisms 

unique to Utah have fostered cooperation and focus for continued and long-term conservation into the future. The state is

concerned that unnecessary restrictions imposed by the BLM and Forest Service will upset the successful efforts underway 

in Utah, to the detriment of the species

UT Both emc0337GB

2002. To further the state's commitment to conservation of the sage grouse and economic health of the state, the Governor 

recently convened a Sage Grouse Working Group. This Working Group is comprised of representatives of the Governor's 

Office, BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Resource Conservation Service, Utah's Office of Energy

Development, School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Department of Agriculture and Food, Division of 

Wildlife Resources, and representatives of the oil and gas industry, transmission line industry, oil shale industry, ranching 

community, county commissioners, The Nature Conservancy, and Utah State University. The Governor's charge directed 

the group to provide recommendations for the protection of sage grouse, while continuing to provide for a healthy economy 

and protecting private property rights. The Working Group was recently briefed on issues related to the life cycle of the sage 

grouse and previous and ongoing efforts to protect the species, and expects to provide recommendations within a few 

months. These recommendations are expected to lead to a state sage grouse plan soon thereafter. The state will expect the 

BLM and Forest Service to adhere to the provisions of this plan, both as a matter of respect for state authority, and in 

compliance with BLM's Instructional Memorandum 2012-039, which requires the BLM to make use of state data reIated to 

wildlife.

UT Both emc0337GB

2003. Fundamentally, a BLM decision to adopt stipulations and conditions which are very restrictive in nature has the potential to 

seriously undermine Utah's unique and cooperative conservation systems that are proving to be successful, long-term 

mechanisms for the management and welfare of sage-grouse.

UT Both emc0337GB

2004. BLM must not make decisions which are counterproductive to the solid eftort in Utah to protect the sage grouse UT BLM emc0337GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-409

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2005. Sage grouse habitat is naturally fragmented by the natural topography and conditions ofthe sagebrush environment in Utah, 

and has been further altered by human needs and activities. Given these facts, the BLM must consider, analyze, and provide 

evidence of the BLM's capability to contribute to the needs of the species, especially with reference to the other multiple-use 

requirements of the BLM which significantly contribute to the economy of Utah and the nation

UT Both emc0337GB

2006. BLM must consider state laws, regulations and policies as part of the analysis within the EIS. Within the sideboards of this 

requirement, the State of Utah expects that the BLM will consider state laws rejecting special management for lands with 

wilderness characteristics, strict requirements for the creation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, policies 

concerning invasive species and energy policy, among others. Specifically, the BLM and Forest Service must consider the 

requirements set forth in Utah Code Section 63J-4-401(6), (7) and (8). In addition. the BLM must analyze effects of any 

restrictions proposed for the benefit of sage for the benefit of the state's schoolchildren - the lands managed by Utah's 

School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. In the western portion of Utah, the BLM must consider grouse upon 

the federal government's obligation to support the mandate of the lands managed the provisions of the Defense 

Authorization Act of 2000.

UT Both emc0337GB

2007. We expect that federal agency plans be consistent to the greatest degree possible with county and state public land use plans 

and polices. Any deviation from county and state plans and policies must be divulged and explained. The State of Utah has 

adopted a plan for sage-grouse recovery. Federal plans should be consistent with this state plan to the greatest degree 

possible. Adoption of state plans for applicability to federal lands should be analyzed and considered as an alternative in the 

NEPA process.

UT Both emc0242GB

2008. The Duchesne County general plan states that: "Resource-use and management decisions byfederal land management and 

regulatory agencies should support state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to stabilize wildlife populations that 

may be experiencing a scientifically proven decline in numbers. " Note from the above paragraph that the goal is to stabilize 

sage-grouse populations rather than return the population to a level that may have existing before our county was 

homesteaded; beginning in 1905. Utah Division of Wildlife Resource lek counts in 1978 revealed 748 male sage grouse and 

a total estimated spring population of2,992 adult birds in the Uintah Basin resource area. UDWR counts in 2005 found 788 

male sage grouse and an estimated total spring population of 3,158 adult birds in the resource area. The science shows that 

sage grouse populations are fairly stable and perhaps even growing in our region; thanks to the efforts of the local 

sage-grouse working group and private/public land managers. The success of such local efforts must be reflected in the RMP 

amendments and the local sage grouse working groups must be consulted with.

UT Both emc0242GB

2009. BLM and Forest lands should not be expected to provide all needed sage grouse habitat to meet such benchmarks. Private, 

state and tribal lands contribute a good share of sage grouse habitat now and will continue to do so in the future. BLM should 

coordinate with state wildlife agencies to monitor the progress of sage grouse and establish population benchmarks for each

state or region sufficient to prevent ESA listing.

UT Both emc0242GB

2010. Carbon County will expect BLM and FS to consider as well as our County Master Plan and its goals and objectives to the 

maximum extent possible consistent with Federal law

UT Both emc0410GB

2011. The position that the threat of possible Sage Grouse listing has placed our citizens, western land states and their local 

govermnent entities in, we view as a direct result of years of federal regulatory onus. Carbon COUlity shall take a willing role 

UT Both emc0410GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-410 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in working to remedy this issue but believe that until the federal agencies and our national leadership recognizes that: 

reducing grazing AUM's west wide consistently for over 50 years, listing under ESA the natural predators of the grouse 

species, outlawing the usc of poisons used to prevent predation and the promotion of fuellbiomass buildup by interrupting 

natural fire regimes have hosted the consequences we and the bird now endure.

2012. Given the limited time frame available to the BLM to analyze and implement Sage-grouse amendment to the identified 

Resource Management Plans and Land and Resource Management Plans, we strongly recommend that the agency tier to 

existing RFDs from the last round of completed planning documents in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. While several of 

Colorado and Montana RMPs have yet to be finalized and implemented, many have already completed preparation of their 

planning RFDs, which should be used as part of the Sage-grouse amendment process. In so doing, BLM will have the benefit 

of local information and expertise rather than attempting to prepare an additional regional RFD.

UT BLM emc0340GB

2013. Uintah County has accepted an invitation to participate in the land use plan amendment process as a Cooperating Agency. 

Thus far, we have not received or reviewed the associated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish this 

relationship. Once established, we request timely and complete sharing of data and information with adequate time frames

established for cooperating agency participation, review and comment

UT Both emc0376GB

2014. We expect that federal agency plans be consistent to the greatest degree possible with county and state public land use plans 

and polices. Any deviation from county and state plans and policies must be divulged and explained. The State of Utah has 

adopted a plan for sagegrouse recovery. Federal plans should be consistent with this state plan to the greatest degree

possible. Adoption of state plans for applicability to federal lands should be analyzed and considered as an alternative in the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

UT Both emc0376GB

2015. The State of Utah Is In the process of completing its sage-grouse plan and it is our understanding that it will establish 

scientifically sound standards that make more sense for Utah. As stated above, Uintah County is also adopting its own local 

plan which implements past and current sage-grouse work. These efforts need to be acknowledged and used to offset some 

of the impacts related to mineral extraction within the County.

UT Both emc0376GB

2016. According to the map titled Utah Greater Sage-grouse Habitat, displayed at scoping meetings, very little GS-g habitat exists 

within Emery County. Furthermore, the habit which does exist is primarily within the M-LSNF. Additionally, the Utah 

Current Oil and Gas Leases and Wells map, and the Utah Public Lands Containing Rights-of-way Designated Right-of-way

Corridors map, both illustrate that GS-g conflicts in Emery County are limited, and involve primarily M-LSNF lands. Although 

the meaning and significance of Range-wide Breeding Bird Densities, depicted on the map of that title, are not well explained, 

or clearly understood, the map information reinforces the above conclusions that the occurrence of GS-g in Emery County 

is extremely limited and associated almost exclusively with National Forest lands.

UT Both rmc0073GB

2017. The various maps displayed at the public meetings illustrate that the boundary separating the Rocky Mountain and Great 

Basin Regions follows the western boundary of Emery County; thus, the county is within the Rocky Mountain Region. The 

perspective of the National Strategy, as stated above is that, "wildfire is a large challenge in the Great Basin Region, whereas 

energy development is fragmenting habitat in the Rocky Mountain Region." The occurrence ofGS-g and their habitat in 

Emery County, as previously stated, are almost exclusively within areas managed by the M-LNF wherein habitat 

fragmentation is a lesser concern than is the potential for catastrophic wildfire. Emery County fully supports the concept of, 

UT Both rmc0073GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-411

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and efforts to develop, closer cooperation and partnerships; however, the situation regarding GS-g in Emery County is not 

appropriately addressed by the delineation of the two regions.

2018. Although Emery County fully supports the concept of, and actions for, focusing analysis of GS-g management at the most 

local level possible, the establishment of sub-regions is confusing and does no lessen the concerns of the county. Confusion 

results from the statement that, "the Great Basin Region is divided into four sub-regions" while the maps depict the Utah 

sub-region encompassing the northeastern-Utah component of the Rocky Mountain Region; including Emery County. 

Development of a Utah sub-region-specific EIS, with its own strategy, is preferable and commendable; however, that strategy 

is intended to address "sagebrush issues", not GS-g issues specifically. Additionally, "Only RMPs [and LMPs] that cover 

planning areas containing sagebrush habitat will be included for amendment." Again, the intent of the strategy seems to be the 

addressing of "sagebrush", not sage-grouse! It appears to Emery County that, if the Utah sub-region EIS results in a Record 

of Decision that amends the Price RMP to include .. new management direction", to address "sagebrush issues" in "planning 

areas containing sagebrush habitat", all of the BLM-managed lands within Emery County may become subject to the "new 

management direction"; in-spite-of-the-fact that such action would not contribute directly to conservation of the Greater 

Sage-grouse; but, would significantly affect other multiple-uses of those public lands.

UT Both rmc0073GB

2019. Emery County is extremely concerned about the catastrophic impacts to the nation, the state, and rural Utah's communities 

and citizens if the Greater Sage-grouse is listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Therefore, the 

county intends to aggressively pursue its involvement in the Utah sub-Region EIS process, and the National Planning Strategy 

process as a Cooperating Agency. Fortunately, Utah has a long and well-established track record of effectively addressing the 

conservation and perpetuation of sage-grouse species, including the Greater Sage-grouse. This has included efforts involving 

state resource management agencies, universities, local governments, grazing associations, natural resource development 

companies, and individual natural resource users working independently or cooperatively, such as Utah's Community-Based 

Conservation Program and its eleven state-wide Local Working Groups (L WGs). These conservation efforts have been 

on-going for a decade, in some cases; therefore, a great deal of valuable research data, knowledge, understanding, experience 

and expertise exists. Utilization of all these resources in the Utah sub-region EIS process is essential.

UT BLM rmc0073GB

2020. The Board of Commissioners of Carbon County, Utah comment on this proposed action intending that the written public 

seeping comments we distributed at the public seeping meeting in Price, Utah on January 17th, 2012 with those of the

Carbon County Transportation Recreation Special Service District (CCTRSSD) together with the following comments and 

recommendations be placed into the administrative record and be referred to directly within the scope of the EIS and SEIS 

documents. And further also be considered in creating any alternatives and impact analysis throughout the development of 

the Planning and management documents that become a part by amendment of The Price Resource Area's Management Plan 

(RMP) and the La Sal National Forest Management Plan (LUP).

UT Both rmc0026RM

2021. As a cooperating and coordinating agency in the creation of RMP and the LUP we are obligated to be directly involved in the 

planning and implementation of any amendments to both Plans. As with all other comments and recommendations that we 

as a local county government have made, the information and recommendations we submit through the Sage Grouse

Management Amendment process Carbon County will expect BLM and FS to consider as well as our County Master Plan and 

its goals and objectives to the maximum extent possible consistent with Federal law.

UT Both rmc0026RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-412 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2022. We firmly believe the continued preservation of Sage Grouse to be of prime importance to prevent its listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) but believe that this can be accomplished successfully without undue burdens that could 

inhibit the ability of recreation, grazing and industry to continue to operate on federal lands and to extract and or use our 

natural resources to the benefit of the American people and the continued economic viability of our citizens and local 

businesses. Likewise we also believe that all other uses on our public lands need not be curtailed as adequate planning can 

mitigate and in some cases promote the habitat that is conducive to Sage Grouse use and preservation.

UT Both rmc0026RM

2023. We acknowledge that the Sage Grouse Management Plan calls for the creation of a programmatic ElS (PElS) to analyze broad 

alternative strategies to protect greater sage-grouse habitat, west-wide. However we would urge BLM and the FS to reject 

a strategy which mandates implementation of a single broad National Policy to be followed on a local basis. We believe the

more effective course would be to use the PElS as a guideline to conduct local analyses. This approach can consider and apply 

management techniques for unique habitat conditions and management considerations for each local area, in lieu of a 

"one-size-fits-all" analysis. Such a "one-size-fits -all" analysis, which purports to be adequate for the entire greater 

sage-grouse population, is in fact an ineffective way and possibly a destructive way to analyze alternatives for habitat and 

population enhancement. This type of analysis only belabors the process and hinders present and future on-the-ground 

conservation efforts to protect greater sage-grouse habitat. Research conducted in the Great Basin has indicated that the 

greater sage-grouse should be managed according to the needs of individual populations and that range-wide measures are 

not appropriate (Launchbaugh, et al. 2007). According to Stiver et al. (2006), "strategies for addressing potential effects of 

grazing on greater sage-grouse must be developed at the regional, and perhaps more effectively, local levels (and coordinated 

regionally)." It would thus be impractical, ineffective, and detrimental to the greater sage-grouse for the agencies to ignore

variations between individual populations by conducting a NEP A analysis beyond its cumulative impact zone.

UT Both rmc0026RM

2024. Based on this information we strongly recommend that in deriving valid decisions through NEP A analysis, that first BLM use 

any available local data, studies, maps and documented behavior patterns and or traits of the actual birds in this area as a base 

to any decision that would drive the RMPILUP management guidelines for Sage Grouse. It is imperative therefore, that the 

data collected for years by our local Sage Grouse Working Group and DWR be recognized and given the highest level of 

credibility in this process. We also recommend that equal consideration be given to the comments and recommendation of 

the American Farm Bureau, the Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other agricultural 

organizations whose members we consider as subject matter experts in the land they steward. They have a high level of 

working knowledge of these lands in their areas and a first-hand knowledge of its history. We believe this data will be 

priceless to the lead agency in this endeavor.

UT Both rmc0026RM

2025. The LWGs emerged to assist state and local governments and private landowners in conserving these species while 

achieving community social and economic objectives. Given the long term declines of sage-grouse populations, and the 

increased interest of state and local governments and private citizens in species conservation planning, there has been an 

effort expand this process in Utah and the region. As such, the LWGs welcome the opportunity to participate as an active 

member in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) National Greater Sage-grouse Planning 

Strategy Process.

UT Both rmc0066GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-413

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2026. PARM efforts at an International Symposium in Park City, Utah was referred to as the "Poster Child" of sage-grouse 

restoration. Our community based efforts on behalf of sage-grouse is nationally recognized in grouse management; 

regulatory and academic communities. PARM's efforts to improve habitat and increase grouse populations should not be 

interrupted by new "beginning stage" actions. Successful efforts by the local community based conservation group should be 

the natural spring board for continued success.

UT Both rmc0066GB

2027. Parker Mountain Resource Management Working Group (PARM) was organized in 1996, to improve habitat and increase 

sage grouse population with maintaining livestock grazing. PARM has been successful in achieving the goal, and continuing to 

do so. The BLM and Forest Service land use plans should include the use of these local working groups to help to increase 

sage grouse populations.

UT Both rmc0062gb

2028. Incorporate in the LUPs the local working groups to aid in increasing sage grouse habitat, don't use the sage grouse to 

destroy the western US, as the spotted owl as used in the northwest US. Please read the enclosed article from the Western 

Livestock Journal March 12,2012.

UT Both rmc0062gb

2029. BLM should clarify the proper avenue for stakeholders in Wyoming to participate in the RMP revision process and whether 

the outcome of the Rocky Mountain Regional process will further modify any RMP revisions developed in the Wyoming state 

process.

WY Both emc0339GB

2030. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that the Wyoming Governor's Sage Grouse Executive Order 2011-5 (SGEO) 

can be an effective regulatory mechanism if fully supported and implemented. Based on this endorsement the WGFD 

recommends that each of the components in the SGEO be included in at least one of the alternative and preferably all the 

components in one alternative. Having BLM adopt a different set of conservation measures for Wyoming will undermine the 

acceptance and implementation of the collaboratively developed conservation measures captured in the SGEO.

WY Both emc0008RM

2031. The Association has been working with the US Fish & Wildlife Service very closely over the past two years to develop 

comprehensive threat analyses and corresponding conservation measures for greater sage-grouse, mountain plover, 

black-tailed prairie dog and five other species of interest. Coverage will be available to Association members-ranchers, coal 

mining companies, and oil and gas interests--owning property in Campbell, Converse, Crook, Niobrara, and Weston 

Counties of northeastern Wyoming. During our review process, solicitors identified some Federal nexus concerns and 

suggested we utilize a joint CCA/CCAA process. We have recently been in contact with Marty Griffith (through USFWS) 

and Chris Keefe to continue discussions which were initiated with both BLM and Forest Service in the fall of 2010. Under our 

information sharing MOUs with both BLM and Forest Service, we have also offered to make the Association's extensive 

vegetative and wildlife data sets for northeast Wyoming available for use in the LUP revision process.

WY Both emc0011RM

2032. Although the Forest Service may not have a lot of sage grouse crucial habitat but because there is so little contigious habitat 

that can be managed left, it is very important habitat. I strongly recommend that the Forest Service stay engaged as a crucial 

habitat manager in this local area.

WY USFS cfc0013RM

2033. The Board of Converse County Commissioners requests to be placed in a coordinating role with the United States Forest 

Service in the Sage Grouse Amendment Process.

WY USFS rmc0046RM

2034. Weston County looks forward to working with you on this project and specifically in the Scoping Period as a local WY Both emc0045RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-414 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

government coordinating agency.

2035. The United States Forest Services and BLM have ignored the ten plus years of effort of the North Eagle/South Routt Sage 

Grouse Committee, of which the USFS and BLM were an active part. I would like to request that the plan from North 

Eagle/South Routt Sage Grouse group be used as a guide in any amendment to the Forest Service plan.

WY Both rmc0041RM

2036. I believe the 520 acres west of Yampa, though close to some Sage Grouse area, is too high in elevation for sage grouse. We 

have observed blue grouse here but not any sage grouse.

WY USFS rmc0041RM

2037. The SG plan calls for no more than a 3% disturbance level. This is too restrictive and unrealistic. The Wyoming Sage Grouse 

Plan calls for 5% and even that could be economically detrimental to agriculture and industry.

WY Both rmc0048RM

2038. Wyoming has a SG plan. The USDA has the Sage Grouse Initiative. The FS already has a plan. Why not give these a chance 

before implementing a plan which has the potential to cripple the mineral and livestock industries and the communities they 

support?

WY Both rmc0048RM

2039. The TBNG is on the extreme eastern edge of sage grouse habitat, according to WY Governors Executive Order EO 1011·5· 

only one core area is further east. The implication is that the amount of suitable habitat in eastern WY is marginal. 

Consequently, most of the initial conservation effort should be focused more towards the center of tm. Sage grouse 

population.

WY Both rmc0045RM

2040. On our private lands adjacent to the TBNG, we have also .een a decline in sage grou~ numbers. attribute this to in-creased 

number of predators, increa.ed invasion of cheatarass, a small amount of habitat fragmentation in sage grouse habitat from 

oil and gas drilling and construction of two additional power/transmission lines, and possibly West Nile virus. I have 

perronally witnessed the sage grouse population decline occurring gradually over the last forty·five yea ... My point is that 

there remains a great deal 01 suitable habitat· but for whatever reason. the sage grouse is not present to utitile it.

WY Both rmc0045RM

2041. Please define 'surface disturbing activities' as used in proposed plan amendment changes. all activities. Specifically. Is this term 

intended to ir>C!ude graling ?

WY Both rmc0045RM

2042. 1. Our Governor, the Honorable Matt Mead, has developed a very good plan to follow for management of sage grouse. This 

plan should be the guideline for future decisions for sage grouse issues.

WY Both cfc0030RM

2043. Weston County Commissioners will require the coordination process to be adhered to in all issues related to the sage 

grouse in Weston County.

WY Both cfc0031RM

2044. "The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 43 USC 1712 requires the BLM coordinate the land use inventory, 

planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of... local 

governments within which the lands are located.: "Agencies shall integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the 

earliest possible time to head off potential conflicts." (section 1501.2) Possible conflicts between the proposed action and the 

objectives of Federal, regional, state and local land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned-must be listed in 

the EIS as well as the resolutions for mitigation of the conflicts. If a problem cannot be resolved this must also be included in 

the EIS.

WY BLM emc0050RM

2045. Why has the BLM not contacted the local governments i.e. the-County Commissioners of each respective county and sat at 

the table thru a coordination process? This is required by law. How is the BLM going to do a draft EIS correctly if they do not 

WY BLM emc0050RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-415

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

know what problems are out there in each county and the solutions that must be mitigated. Until the BLM meets according 

to the coordination process and works through the issues with each county the NEPA process has not been followed and 

the plan amendment is not valid. Co-ordination requires the federal agency to meet with the local governments and work

out any concerns or issues before a final EIS can be submitted. This is not the federal agency telling the local governments 

what they will accept or do but rather how the federal agency can make their land use plan or policy acceptable to the local 

government’s authority. This is not cooperating agency status but coordination-a whole different scenario-Why has the BLM 

not followed their obligations by federal law?

2046. I would state that your scheduled time frame will be much longer than you have planned because meeting and working 

through the conflicts will probably take much more time than you are allowing. The coordination process will not stop with 

a draft EIS but is an ongoing communication process. Therefore I would recommend you roll back your schedule and instead 

start scheduling coordination meetings with each county’s local governments. A draft EIS can be done before everything is 

agreed to while a final EIS must include all the mitigation done with the local governments as per their concerns. If this is not 

done the plan amendment is NOT valid and legal!

WY Both emc0050RM

2047. All facets of the area economics must be taken into consideration when making plan amendments to a land resource 

management plan. First and foremost a series of coordination meetings with the local County Commissioners must occur to 

develop a sound economic land use management plan in each respective county. Notice I said coordination not 

cooperation-the County Commissioners have the legal right to voice their opinions and concerns about any land use plan 

within their respective county. The BLM is required by law to help mitigate any concerns the Commissioners have with a 

federal land use plan on Forest Service lands. The Commissioners are supposed to be a voice of the citizens within that 

county and should be able to help work with the federal agency to develop a plan workable and usable for the citizens of that

county. These meetings must occur during scoping and continue as needed before finalization of the final land use plan and 

any ensuing amendment.

WY Both emc0050RM

2048. What size constitutes a pond? Is it a mudhole, dip in the landscape, natural catch for water or a manmade reservoir- what 

size is a pond?

WY Both emc0050RM

2049. Disturbance issues do not carry over to private land use. If private land is within 2 miles of known nesting sites a letter to the 

landowner that there is a chance of nesting sage grouse within a distance upon their private lands might prompt the 

landowner to change the place or day that a planned activity on their lands will occur. Private lands are not controlled by 

federal agencies but most landowners do protect and conserve species of wildlife upon their private lands. The landowners 

usually know what exists on their land but a short letter describing the concerns across the fence could help educate the 

landowner or lease holder as to any actions they might take to alleviate some nesting or courting disturbances.

WY Both emc0050RM

2050. The USFWS has approved the core management strategy for sage grouse as stipulated within the Wyoming Governor’s EO 

for sage grouse management. It would be simpler and much more efficient if the BLM attempted to manage their lands 

according to this management programonly upon federally managed lands. The National Technical Team’s suggestions are 

very liberal thinking and will land the BLM in court more often than not as several ideas presented do not consider private 

property rights.

WY BLM emc0050RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-416 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2051. ‘The BLM will consider and evaluate measures .. to limit all surface disturbance...to no more than 5 percent of the core 

landscape...’ (page6) letter What is the base for a DDCT area-Disturbance Density Calculation Tool area? How many acres 

or miles is the minimum for this area? The size will make a large difference in the calculation of 5%. You should have a base 

value in acreage for this then go from there. If you are calculating each base DDCT area as 640 acres then so state otherwise

determine the minimum base value so everyone has the same starting point to determine the percentage of disruption. How 

is the DDCT area determined? What are the boundaries in acreage of each core area and can the boundaries be expanded 

or contracted due to other concerns in the area? Who determines the core area is the BLM, Forest Service or the State EO 

the basis for determining core area boundaries? Give us a standard base figure for disturbance to be evaluated from.

WY Both emc0050RM

2052. ‘FOs are directed to coordinate with WGFD and to utilize LWG plans and other sources of information to guide 

development of additional conservation objectives for localized management of sage-grouse habitats.’(page 8 letter) The FOs 

must also coordinate with the local County Commissioners , as per NEPA regulations, before placing any additional 

conservation objectives on local sage grouse habitats since additional measures might have a negative economic impact upon 

the county.

WY BLM emc0050RM

2053. ‘In all cases, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of proposed action on sage-grouse, other wildlife and all other impacted 

resources must be described regardless of distance from the project or whether inside or outside sage grouse core areas.’ 

(page 9 letter). Also included in this must be the direct, indirect and cumulative impact of the proposed action upon livestock 

management or grazing plans. What is the maximum distance considered here 11 miles, 4 or ?

WY Both emc0050RM

2054. The Forest Service is proposing to amend the 2003 Revised MBRNF and the 2001 Thunder Basin Land & Resource 

Management plans: The federal agency needs to consider the following: There are in actuality two plan amendments that 

need to be considered.

WY USFS emc0050RM

2055. What is a suitable buffer that may be applied in siting a proposed anthropogenic surface disturbance to protect surrounding 

suitable, undisturbed habitats?

WY Both emc0050RM

2056. There is no scientific data that proves livestock grazing is harmful to sage grouse. The BLM and Forest Service and the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service all must use proven "sound" scientific data before they enact any regulatory mechanisms over 

landowners and livestock managers.

WY Both emc0050RM

2057. It is important to try to change the areas we can and not try to micromanage every aspect of a species life. If a healthy habitat 

is available and ready for use then that should alleviate a large part of the concerns.

WY Both emc0050RM

2058. The private landowners must not be punished because of things caused by nature-difficult winter storms, hail, wildfires, etc. 

The public and private landowners should be made aware of the concerns of the species viability and the issues must be 

worked out in a public forum with the local governments before any plans are changed or finalized. Everyone can and should 

work together to a common goal but ranching livelihoods must be protected as well. Private land management not federal 

government micromanagement is one of the prime reasons the sage grouse still exist today. Educate the landowners and let 

them take the initiative on their private lands without federal intervention.

WY Both emc0050RM

2059. Garfield County contends that it is not necessary, prudent, or financially responsible to insert a new study or plan from 

Wyoming for what has already recently been completed for a specific area.

WY Both emc0058RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-417

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2060. The eastern/Rocky Mountain region map of regional breeding densities, when compared to historical maps of the bird’s 

range and the extent of healthy sagebrush ecosystems, illustrates: 1) the challenge we face in coming years and; 2) the 

urgency of achieving effective sage-grouse conservation by incorporating science-based recommendations that were 

unavailable only a few years ago. It is critical to achieve success in conserving the greater sage-grouse, dozens of sagebrush 

obligate species, and the vital ecosystem on which these species depend. Wyoming’s Core Areas Strategy, established with 

diverse and committed stakeholder support, can help to inform efforts as management policies are developed for other 

populations in the region. This regional effort provides a critical opportunity to build upon Wyoming’s approach, scaling it to

the unique circumstances of adjacent states, where smaller sage-grouse populations and less remaining habitat heighten the 

importance of applying strong, science-based protections.

WY Both emc0089RM

2061. Each alternative should designate areas of contiguous sage-grouse habitat not currently subject to mineral leases or other 

valid existing rights for permanent protection. These remaining refugia can provide intact, diverse, high quality sagebrush 

habitat, vital to sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species. In Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-013, the Wyoming 

BLM proposed 11 contiguous square miles or sections as an appropriate minimum size for an area of habitat to qualify for 

being set-aside from development.6 The Wyoming BLM recognized these large unleased contiguous blocks as opportunities 

for grouse conservation. This number should be scaled to allow for protecting smaller contiguous areas in states with smaller 

populations than Wyoming’s, or in areas where there are few remaining contiguous 11-square-mile areas that are not 

subject to valid existing rights. These identified, contiguous areas of undeveloped land should be considered for designation 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in all alternatives. (See Section 8 on ACECs for further discussion)

WY Both emc0089RM

2062. The BLM released IM 2010-012 on January 4, 2010. In it, the BLM committed to management prescriptions that were 

outlined in the 2008 Wyoming Executive Order (EO), and set thresholds for energy development densities and cumulative 

surface disturbance in core areas, that would protect grouse habitat over the long term. This approach was first developed 

in 2008 and subsequently updated by Wyoming’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) – a task force convened by 

former Governor Freudenthal, and comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders. The SGIT’s recommendations were 

formalized in a series of EOs that affirm the core areas conservation strategy. Established with broad bipartisan support, this 

science-based strategy focused on conserving sage-grouse by providing the species with additional protections in areas with 

the highest remaining concentrations. Wyoming’s Governor Mead revised and reauthorized the strategy in EO 2011-5, 

issued on June 2, 2001. 2011. Since the Wyoming Core Area Strategy was developed relatively recently, it has yet to be

formally adopted by any federal RMP or LRP in Wyoming. BLM field offices are now in the process of revising or amending 

RMPs to incorporate the Core Area Strategy. The BLM Wyoming State Office is the first in the region to initiate a planning 

effort to amend six RMPs (Casper, Kemmerer, New Castle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Green River) to incorporate conservation 

policies based on BLM Wyoming’s IM 2010-012 and on the Core Area Strategy, as formalized in the Wyoming Eos. The area 

under revision includes approximately 11 million acres of public land surface and 20 million acres of federal mineral estate. 

In addition, four other field offices (Bighorn Basin, Buffalo, Lander, and Rock Springs) have RMPs that currently are being 

revised, providing managers with a timely opportunity to implement needed changes in the management and conservation of 

greater sage-grouse habitat.

WY Both emc0089RM

2063. Importantly, the Thunder Basin National Grassland LMP is listed as "potentially affected" in the Federal Register Notice of WY Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-418 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Intent, but was not included in the BLM Wyoming Notice of Intent. The Thunder Basin NG LMP should be amended as part 

of range-wide conservation planning because it includes greater sage-grouse habitat. Collectively, the RMP and LMP 

amendments or revisions should provide consistency in managing sage-grouse habitat across federal lands in Wyoming.

2064. ii. Support from USFWS BLM Wyoming State Office’s decision to adopt the Core Area Strategy followed the USFWS’s

endorsement. In a July 2009 letter from USFWS to the Director of Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), former 

USFWS Field Supervisor Brian Kelly stated that: "the Strategy is a science-driven, outcome-based and adaptive approach to 

the conservation of a species and its habitat"11. Kelly continued, "In the context of a potential listing under the ESA, the 

State’s sagegrouse Strategy provides a useful framework to show how the threats to the species are being managed; and if 

the Strategy is adopted across different land ownerships in the state, could provide an important regulatory mechanism as 

well." In a June 2011 letter from USFWS to Governor Mead’s office, USFWS Field Supervisor Mark Sattelberg confirmed 

continued support. "The Service believes the [latest] Executive Order can result in the long-term conservation of the 

Greater sage-grouse and thus reduce the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If fully implemented, we believe the Executive Order can provide the conservation program necessary 

to achieve your goal of precluding listing of the Greater sage-grouse in Wyoming."12 However, USFWS cautioned that "[t]o 

be effective, State, Federal, and private landowners must all implement this Executive Order." As manager of nearly one third 

of the state’s land and nearly two-thirds of the mineral estate, BLM became proactive in addressing sage-grouse conservation 

in Wyoming. The success of these efforts will depend on continued willingness to adhere to stringent, science-based 

strategies, to carefully implement protection measures, and to retain stakeholder support.

WY BLM emc0089RM

2065. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Wyoming’s Executive Order was developed with consistent support from 

the Governor’s office, based on the realization that proactive, science-based conservation strategies were urgently needed 

to conserve sage-grouse. The SGIT was charged with developing recommendations for a Wyoming approach. The group’s 

initial core area boundaries were largely based on regional breeding densities of sage-grouse, giving a scientific basis to the 

conservation strategy. Core area boundaries were then modified based on input from local working groups (in which WGFD

was involved), which made adjustments to exclude lands that historically did not support grouse, had isolated or small 

scattered leks, or were undergoing or slated to undergo intensive development and/or urbanization based on valid existing 

rights. Excluding high development areas reflected the understanding that highly disturbed areas are generally not suitable as 

core grouse habitat, and are unlikely to retain healthy grouse populations long-term.

WY Both emc0089RM

2066. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Importantly, Wyoming’s designated core areas include connectivity areas, 

breeding areas, and late brood-rearing habitat (all of which are stressed by the NTT). The Core Area Strategy also

recognized the importance of winter concentration areas. Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 states, "While the bulk of 

winter habitat necessary to support core sage-grouse populations likely occurs inside Core Population Areas, seasonal 

stipulations (December 1 to March 14) should be considered in locations outside Core Population Areas where they have 

been identified as winter concentration areas necessary for supporting biologically significant numbers of sage-grouse nesting 

in Core Population Areas. All efforts should he made to minimize disturbance to mature sagebrush cover in identified winter 

concentration areas."

WY Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-419

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2067. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Priority habitats should be large enough to stabilize sage-grouse 

populations in the short term and enhance grouse populations over the long term. Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy is 

designed to protect 83% of the greater sage-grouse population within approximately 25% of the state’s land mass.

WY Both emc0089RM

2068. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Wyoming’s strategy emphasizes stronger protections within core areas, 

with less stringent protections and greater management flexibility in non-core areas as an incentive for development to leave 

core areas intact. While this strategy acknowledges that non-core area grouse populations will likely decline due to loss and 

fragmentation of habitat, monitoring must take place to prevent the extirpation of populations and maintain connectivity 

among subpopulations. In non-core areas, lek persistence must be maintained over the long term, with sufficient proportions 

of sage-grouse populations remaining to maintain connectivity and movements.

WY Both emc0089RM

2069. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Within core areas, stipulations on BLM, FS, Wind River Indian Reservation, 

and State of Wyoming lands limit the number of projects and the amount of allowed disturbance (no more than 5%13) 

allowed per square mile or 640 acres. Surface disturbance is prohibited within a 0.6 mile buffer around active leks (no surface 

occupancy - NSO), which includes roads during the breeding, nesting and brood-rearing periods (mid-March through end of 

June). In addition, a March 15 to June 30 timing limitation stipulation is required within nesting habitat within 4 miles of leks. 

Main roads used to transport production and/or waste products must be more than 1.9 miles from the perimeter of 

occupied grouse leks. Other roads used for access or maintenance must be more than 0.6 miles from the perimeter of 

occupied leks. Noise levels at the perimeter of a lek should not exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise from 6 pm to 8 am, so 

as not to disturb breeding activities (March 1 - May 15). Finally, proponents of new projects are expected to coordinate with 

the permitting agency and WGFD biologists to determine which leks need to be monitored and what data should be 

collected/reported. The Executive Order clearly identifies thresholds and outline adaptive management responses if declines 

in sage-grouse numbers occur14. However, in non-core areas, the EO recommends a 2-mile seasonal buffer around 

occupied leks and a 0.25 mile NSO buffer around active leks. Research has shown that the latter stipulation is inadequate and 

scientifically without merit. In addition, a surface disturbance cap is lacking from non-core area stipulations

WY Both emc0089RM

2070. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach The Wyoming strategy provides that "[t]he protective stipulations outlined 

in this Executive Order should be reevaluated on a continuous basis and at a minimum annually, as new science, information 

and data emerge regarding Core Population Areas and the habitats and behaviors of the Greater Sage-Grouse." Wyoming 

EO 2011-5 at 4.

WY Both emc0089RM

2071. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach Of particular importance are the following statements from the 2009 

USFWS letter signed by former USFWS Field Supervisor Kelly, "Potential benefits of the Strategy will only be realized if the 

integrity of the core area approach is maintained. The Service feels that the greatest threats to the integrity of the core areas 

are: (1) not adhering to science-based conservation measures associated with development, and (2) allowing mitigation for 

impacts to core population areas as an option if the proposed development is counter to accepted conservation measures 

or when impacts are not known."

WY Both emc0089RM

2072. Recommendations: Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy, established with diverse and strong stakeholder support in Wyoming 

and endorsed by the USFWS, can inform regional sagegrouse conservation efforts as management policies are tailored for 

other habitat and populations in the region. However, the successful implementation of Wyoming’s core area strategy will be 

WY Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-420 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

critical to the success of the strategy in Wyoming and critical to the applicability and success of this model if it is to be applied 

regionally. In addition, the regional sage-grouse conservation effort provides a critical opportunity to appropriately scale 

Wyoming’s approach. Other states have unique circumstances, such as smaller populations and lower quality, fragmented 

habitat, heightening the importance of adopting stronger, science-based protections to increase the chances of conserving 

and recovering habitat and populations that may be less robust than those in Wyoming.

2073. 12. THE AGENCIES SHOULD CONSIDER MITIGATION STRATEGIES ACROSS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES BLM 

and FS policies are critical but they cannot sustain or enhance sage-grouse populations by themselves. Greater sage-grouse 

conservation efforts and habitat protection must extend across jurisdictional boundaries. At the federal level, sage-grouse 

habitat and populations occur on FS lands, generally located adjacent to BLM habitat and/or private land. The USFWS

responsibilities include management of National Wildlife Refuges and ensuring ESA compliance. State fish and game 

agencies are already developing policies to conserve remaining habitat, protect existing populations, obtain crucial scientific 

information, and develop maps to inform protective policies. WGFD has exhibited leadership in the development of 

Wyoming’s Core Areas Strategy and associated sage-grouse distribution and habitat maps. State wildlife areas will play an 

important role in sage-grouse conservation, and management of these areas must be integrated with policies on adjacent 

federal or private lands.

WY Both emc0089RM

2074. i. Lander, WY RMP We applaud the statement within the Draft EIS: "management actions that conserve, protect, and

maintain habitat for greater sage-grouse are a priority in this (core) area" (DEIS at 865).

WY Both emc0089RM

2075. i. Lander, WY RMP Record #4095, for Alternative D, prohibits surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities from March 

1 to July 15. This change from March 15 is beneficial to sage-grouse.

WY Both emc0089RM

2076. i. Lander, WY RMP Reclamation should be mandatory and managers must recognize that methods for achieving success 

vary by region and are site-specific. Reclamation efforts should be monitored and results maintained in a single database to 

improve our understanding about effectiveness of such efforts. In addition, a process should be established to identify and 

address failed reclamation projects. Successful reclamation of surface disturbance is necessary to establish connectivity 

within previously fragmented habitats and to achieve and maintain ecosystem function (DEIS at 864).

WY Both emc0089RM

2077. Recommendations: The Lander (WY) and Kremmling (CO) Field Offices’ Draft RMPs contain important conservation 

measures that should be applied, where appropriate, to other land use plans, specifically, Alternatives B and D in Wyoming 

and Alternatives B and C in Colorado. Many of these management prescriptions recognize the relative value of other

resources while contributing to the conservation of greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.

WY Both emc0089RM

2078. All discussions of alternatives and mitigation measures must be grounded in the best available sage grouse science. WY BLM emc0129RM

2079. Ensure an accurate and complete cumulative impact analysis regarding sage grouse habitat. The BLM’s NEPA Handbook 

states that cumulative effects analysis “must be able to describe the incremental differences in cumulative effects as a result 

of the proposed action and alternatives.” BLM NEPA Handbook at 61. The CEQ has provided guidance to agencies that

NEPA requires that “cumulative effects must be evaluated along with the direct effects and indirect effects... of each 

alternative...” and that “...as the proposed action is modified or other alternatives are developed (usually to avoid or 

minimize adverse effects), additional or different cumulative effects issues may arise.”1 Sage-grouse face a complex array of 

WY BLM emc0129RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-421

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

threats to their continued survival. Housing developments, energy projects, mining, improper livestock grazing, habitat 

alteration and fragmentation, disease, predation, transportation and energy transmissions facilities, drought, climate change,

and a myriad of other activities impact the sage grouse. As the Western Watersheds Court astutely observed, “It is the 

cumulative impacts of the disturbances, rather than any single source, [that] may be the most significant influence on the 

trajectory of sagebrush ecosystems.” Western Watersheds v. Fish & Wildlife Service, 535 F.Supp 2d, 1173, (D. Idaho 2007).

It is thus often difficult in a situation like sage-grouse population decline where there are many interacting factors to decide 

how one action will create benefits or impacts. However, NEPA calls for this very type of analysis.

2080. 4) Promote cooperation between agencies with different management objectives and practices through development of 

consistent goals and application of sage grouse habitat management guidelines such as those found in the Wyoming core 

Area Policy and Executive Oder 2011-5 and the BLM’s National Technical Team Report (BLM 2011).

WY USFS emc0144RM

2081. 5) Consider that the Wyoming Core Area Policy, which provides guidance for land use planning and development on private 

and public lands, may not be entirely appropriate to conserve small isolated sage-grouse populations such as those found in 

the USRBCA, especially when important habitats fall outside core areas.

WY USFS emc0144RM

2082. 11) Work with local, state, and federal governments and private landowners to promote positive and minimize negative 

impacts to sage grouse and their habitats.

WY USFS emc0144RM

2083. Because of the diverse nature of the USRBCA, we evaluate proposed projects on a site-specific basis related to how these 

projects address key factors suppressing or controlling population size.

WY USFS emc0144RM

2084. The State of Wyoming has recognized the listing of Greater sage-grouse would have substantial adverse impacts on our 

statc's economy. In rccognition of that fact, the State has taken significant steps to conserve the specie's by adopting a Core 

Population Area conservation strategy in a series of Executive Ord~rs. This efIort culminated 'with U1e release of Executive

Order 2011-5, issued by Governor Mead in June of 2011. The State's strategy has been recognized as a tremendously 

important effort in conserving the Greater sagc-grouse and the State desef\'es credit for that eiIort. All stakeholders will 

agrec the key to species conservation is the preservation of its existing habitat and the restoration of habitat that has been 

degraded in the past.

WY Both rmc0049RM

2085. Because mueh of the surface ownership of sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming is federal, in each amendmcnt of the Wyoming 

RMPs that you are undertaking, it is important the Bureau give careful consideration to offsite compensatory mitigation as an 

effective way to encourage the restoration of sage-grouse habitat. Allowing such oITsite mitigation in key areas, including

federal land. will go far to\.vard conserving the species, whi Ie simultaneously allowing the continued multiple use of public 

lands.

WY Both rmc0049RM

2086. Our comments are specific to our mission: dedication to the promotion and enhancement of Wyoming's agriculture, natural 

resources, and quality of life. As these actions affect our agriculture industry, our natural resources, and the welfare of our 

citizens, it is important you continue to inform us of proposed actions and decisions and continue to provide us the 

opportunity to express pertinent issues and concerns. In August of 2009 the WDA provided written comments for the 

Wyoming BLM Resource Management Plan amendments and we ask that those comments be considered for the Eastern 

Region EIS/SEIS.

WY Both rmc0010RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-422 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2087. With management direction of public land, these actions will undeniably affect grazing permittees, agriculture producers, 

landowners and other citizens, as well as our natural resources, over a large area of Wyoming. Officials need to consider 

these effects: direct, indirect, cumulative, economic, social, and environmental.

WY Both rmc0010RM

2088. The WDA supports the greater sage-grouse strategy outlined in the Governor's Executive Order 2011-05, particularly 

Attachment C (Exempt Activities). The list of Exempt (de minimus) Activities includes several livestock grazing management 

practices that have occurred on public lands for more than 100 years. In addition, the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands and existing regulations allow Federal agencies the flexibility to make meaningful and educated adjustments to 

livestock grazing management if conflicts with other resources occur. livestock grazing management decisions should be 

made on a case-by-case, allotment-by-allotment basis and not as an overarching land use planning decision. Because of these 

reasons, the WDA does not believe it is necessary to address livestock grazing management in the upcoming EISs/SEISs.

WY Both rmc0010RM

2089. Glossary definitions are extremely important to the actual uses and meanings of those defined terms in the EISs/SEISs. The 

definition for surface disturbance is particularly significant for livestock grazing. Overly broad definitions create unintended 

consequences. WDA recommends planners and cooperators utilize and evaluate the "surface-disturbing activity" definition 

in the Casper BLM EIS/RMP. We also ask that care is taken when developing definitions for "wildlife disturbing activity," 

"disruptive activity" and similar terms.

WY Both rmc0010RM

2090. Wyoming is aggressively managing its Greater Sage-Grouse populations and has taken significant action, in concert with our 

federal partners and others within our state, to protect the species' habitat. For more than a decade, Wyoming has worked 

to protect and improve habitat of the Greater Sage-Grouse culminating in a statewide management plan that is considered 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be "a sound framework for a policy by which to conserve greater sage-grouse in 

Wyoming." Wyoming's statewide management plan is embodied in Executive Order 2011 -5 , titled Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Area Protection, which I signed on June 2.2011. The Executive Order contains stipulations designed to maintain and 

enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in Wyoming and represents a national model for wildlife and natural resource 

management, as well as a productive partnership between the state, local, federal, non-profit and private sectors.

WY Both rmc0032RM

2091. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that the Wyoming Govemor's Sage Grouse Executive Order 2011-5 (SGEO) 

can be an effective regulatory mechanism if fully supponed and implemented. Based on this endorsement the: WGFD 

recommends that each of the componenlli in the SGEO be included in al least one of the alternative and preferably all the

component in one alternative.

WY Both rmc0039RM

2092. Havng US Forest Service adopt a different set of conservation measures for Wyoming will undermine the acceptance and 

implementation of the collaborath'ely developed conservation measures captured in the SGEO

WY Both rmc0039RM

2093. Wyoming BLM initiated a planning process in 2010 to address sage-grouse conservation in six RMPs (75 Fed. Reg. 30054) 

(the Wyoming sage-grouse RMP amendments might also include the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (C. Otto, Wyoming 

BLM, pers. comm. with M. Salvo (Jan. 12, 2011)). Some individual RMPs in Wyoming are also currently under revision and will 

consider new conservation measures for sage-grouse (C. Otto, Wyoming BLM, pers. comm. with M. Salvo (Jan. 12, 2011)). 

The initial rangewide planning notice states that the Wyoming sage-grouse RMP amendments and individual RMP revisions 

will proceed as intended (76 Fed. Reg. 77009). Although the RMP amendments and revisions may analyze and consider the 

conservation measures in the NTT report, they are expected to adopt some version of Wyoming’s sage-grouse strategy as 

WY Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-423

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

their preferred alternative for managing the species.3 That strategy, developed by the state and generally adopted by

Wyoming BLM in statewide sage-grouse management guidance, may be inadequate to fully recover sage-grouse for the 

long-term. There are significant differences between the Wyoming strategy and recommendations in the NTT report (see 

Appendix 5). The Wyoming sage-grouse amendments and individual RMP revisions must not adopt weaker management

prescriptions for sage-grouse than land use plans in other states and regions are expected to use.

2094. The IM states, "While these conservation measures are range-wide in scale, it is expected that at the regional and 

sub-regional planning scales there may be some adjustments of these conservation measures in order to address local 

ecological site variability...It is anticipated that plans may develop goals and objectives that differ and are specific to individual 

planning areas." We support this acknowledgement that regional and sub-regional conservation measures may require 

divergent conservation measures in order to address local variability. However, it is our view that a minimum of sub-regional 

approach would be most appropriate allowing for local modification as necessary. We also support the direction that BLM 

FOs and Forest Service Ranger Districts do not need to apply the IM policies and procedures in states that have adopted 

their own conservation policies, such as Wyoming. Rather, it is crucial for the agencies to refrain from finalizing the preferred 

alternative until such time that it completes work with States to develop conservation policies and identify priority habitats. 

Again, until the birds are listed under the ESA they are the property of the states.

WY Both emc0340GB

2095. The Governor of Wyoming in his Sage-grouse Executive Order 2011-5 recognizes the critical value of allowing existing land 

uses and landowner activities to continue in core areas (similar to PPH). He has recognized that on-going uses in important 

habitat areas have not resulted in the decimation of the species. At the same time, the Core Area Strategy in Wyoming is 

protecting 86% of the breeding birds which cover 29% of the state. We would urge that any RMP revisions in Wyoming fully 

recognize and integrate Sage Grouse Executive Order 2011-5 into the analysis including provisions for existing uses. This 

Core Area Strategy has proven effective in balancing the ability to develop Wyoming’s vast energy resources and protecting 

sage grouse habitat.

WY Both emc0340GB

2096. Given the limited time frame available to the BLM to analyze and implement Sage-grouse amendment to the identified 

Resource Management Plans and Land and Resource Management Plans, we strongly recommend that the agency tier to 

existing RFDs from the last round of completed planning documents in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. While several of 

Colorado and Montana RMPs have yet to be finalized and implemented, many have already completed preparation of their 

planning RFDs, which should be used as part of the Sage-grouse amendment process. In so doing, BLM will have the benefit 

of local information and expertise rather than attempting to prepare an additional regional RFD.

WY BLM emc0340GB

2097. Stronghold Emphasis Alternative Managing to support a minimum effective population as high as 5,000 breeding adults in

both of the GSG stronghold areas identified in the FWS Findings (the southwest Wyoming Basin and the Great Basin area

straddling Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho, pages 13958, 13962, 13986, 13988, 14008, and 14009) 3 would represent a 

reasonable alternative to maintain sufficient genetic information to safeguard the GSG against the long-term risk of 

extinction, thereby avoiding the need to list the species under the ESA. Under this alternative, significant genetic information 

would not only be provided within both stronghold GSG populations, but also within the separate Gunnison, Washington,

and Bi-state populations.

WY Both emc0251GB, 

em0101RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-424 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2098. Conservation districts within the State of Wyoming meet the definition of "local governments" as required by NEP A and 

Conservation Districts have special expertise which should be utilized by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") and 

Forest Service as part of this EIS process as well as the processes which will be used to amend the applicable land use plans 

relative to the Sage Grouse

WY Both emc0342GB

2099. Wyoming Statute 11-16-103 provides that conservation districts are to "provide for the conservation of the soil, and soil and 

water resources of this state, and for the control and prevention of soil erosion and flood erosion or for the conservation, 

development, utilization, and disposal of water." This "special expertise" of the conservation districts is to be used to 

"stabilize ranching and farming operations, to preserve natural resources, protect the tax base, control floods, prevent 

impairment of dams and reservoirs, preserve wildlife, protect public lands and protect and promote the health, safety and 

general welfare of the people ofthis state." Id. Wyoming conservation districts are empowered to conduct surveys, 

investigations and research and disseminate information, conduct demonstration projects and carry out preventative control 

measures relating to soil andwater resources. W.S.11-16-122. Within the duties of Wyoming's conservation districts,

renewable natural resources, natural resources, or resources means "land, soil, water, vegetation, trees, wild rivers, 

wilderness, natural beauty, scenery and open space." W.S. 11-16-102(a)(x). Based upon these statutory mandates, 

conservation districts possess the special expertise envisioned for cooperating agencies under NEP A. As stated by the

Wyoming statutes, this expertise in natural resources applies not only to the physical resources themselves, but also to 

providing for the stability of Wyoming's ranching and farming industries, protection of the tax base and the promotion of the 

health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State.

WY Both emc0342GB

2100. My constituent, Mike Calling, Chairman of the Converse County Board of Commissioners, has provided me with the 

enclosed copy of his letter to you regarding the Thunder Basin National Grasslands as potential sage grouse habitat. I would 

like to ask that the situation outlined be carefully reviewed and that I be advised of your findings.

WY USFS rmc0051RM

2101. My constituant Denise Lang't::y, has prOVIded me WIth the enclosed copy of her letter to you regarding the seeping for tI1e 

Sage-Grouae Conserval1On PIM Amendments lor both Ihft Medlcll'lC Bow-Routt National Forest (MBRNF) and the 

Thunder Basin NatioMi Grassland (TBNG). I would like to ask that tne situation outlined be (;arMuOy reVlt!'Wed andthat 

I be advised of your findings

WY USFS fxc0002RM

2102. A further note to be made is for Ihe I..o..ral ent"'es to coordinate and k.,.,pthe 10CiI1 human population insured of existence, 

Coordinating is ~ vital means for many differenl inSI itutions to voice and hea, the mncern, and ideas of others when 

decisiOfls are considered lor implementation affect ing livelihood

WY Both rmc0043RM

2103. BLM Scoping Materials allude to the Wyoming Core Area concept, but do not make any commitment, even to the State of 

Wyoming, that a state developed Core Area Determination or any other state sponsored plan will be considered as an 

altemative in the RMP-SEIS process. Absent this commitmenl, no State and no stakeholder within a state will have any 

incentive to work 011 a state developed plan.

WY BLM fxc0011GB

2104. The sage grouse declines in the Powder River Basin teach important lessons about levels of development that are 

incompatible with sage grouse conservation, and these lessons need to be applied across the rest of Wyoming.

WY BLM emc0343GB

2105. Importantly, while the State of Wyoming has a Sage Grouse Core Area Executive Order, it is a statement of policy, not a 

statute or regulation, so the NTT recommendations should be implemented preferentially over the biologically weak State 

WY BLM emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-425

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

policy in cases where they conflict.

2106. We understand that the federal government is considering using as a national template the Core Area Strategy originally 

developed by the State of Wyoming and subsequently refined in several Instruction Memoranda by the BLM Wyoming State 

Office. This strategy is based on an ecologically sound concept: that the sage grouse is a landscapescale species requiring the 

designation of large tracts of key habitat where sage grouse habitat conservation will be the first priority in land management. 

However, the implementation of this strategy, and the specific standards and guidelines that have been applied to date in 

Wyoming Core Areas, have been characterized by major loopholes that allow industrial uses that are clearly incompatible 

with sage grouse persistence to move forward inside Core Area boundaries. As a result, there has been major controversy 

within the state over whether the Core Area concept is a legitimate conservation strategy or merely window dressing 

designed to create the illusion of sage grouse conservation inside Core Areas without actually restricting the activities that 

threaten sage grouse in these areas. The Sage Grouse RMP Amendment Process should adopt the best parts of the 

Wyoming strategy while redressing its crippling defects, and in Wyoming the loopholes which currently open Core Areas to 

incompatible uses need to be closed, at least on federal lands. Loopholes in Core Area guidance are fully discussed in the 

section titled, ‘Science-based standards for oil and gas development,’ below.

WY Both emc0343GB

2107. When the State of Wyoming embarked upon its groundbreaking sage grouse Core Area policy, it started with the right idea, 

identifying core habitats that supported the most abundant populations of sage grouse, and prioritizing these areas for 

protection. However, because a consensus-based collaborative group (the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team or “Team”) 

was appointed by Governor Freudenthal to identify Core Areas and prescribe the conservation measures that applied there, 

representatives from the oil industry appointed to the Team were able to extract biologically inappropriate concessions, 

both in terms of removing key habitats from Core Areas and in creating loopholes and lowering protection levels that apply 

both within and outside the Core Areas. As a result, some Core Areas excluded key sage grouse habitats, and other lands 

that should have been Core Areas by virtue of having the highest densities of sage grouse were excluded entirely from the 

designations, especially in the Powder River Basin (Buffalo Field Office) and along the Atlantic Rim in the Rawlins Field office. 

As a result, the Core Areas designated in the Powder River Basin likely are inadequate to prevent the extirpation of the 

species in this key linkage between populations in Montana and the Dakotas and the heart of the sage grouse range. A 

Population Viability Analysis recently commissioned by BLM for the Powder River Basin indicates that as well densities 

increase to 8 wells per square mile, a single West Nile virus outbreak is predicted to cause the functional extinction of this 

population across the Basin. See Attachment 2. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and the Sage Grouse Plan 

Amendments should address this problem directly by increasing the number of Core Areas to include the remaining 

high-density sage grouse lek complexes and expanding existing Core Areas. Populations elsewhere within Core Areas are 

likely to decline or even disappear if industrial development proceeds there under current guidelines. These crippling 

weaknesses in the Wyoming plan render it unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny as an adequate conservation measure. The 

federal government can and should do better for federal lands.

WY Both emc0343GB

2108. In his original 2008 Executive Order, Governor Freudenthal got it right: “New development or land uses within Core 

Population Areas should be authorized or conducted only when it can be demonstrated by the state agency that the activity 

will not cause declines in Greater Sage-Grouse populations.”2 This provision essentially required that the best available 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-426 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

science be consulted, and if levels of proposed development exceeded science-based thresholds at which sage grouse 

declines begin to occur, the development would not be allowable. This provision was removed in Governor Freudenthal’s 

2010 Executive Order, and was not reinstated by Governor Mead in his own 2011 Sage Grouse Executive Order. The 

Interior Department has the opportunity to redress this reversal of policy by ensuring that this commitment is included in 

the rangewide sage grouse policy, and therefore protections reflecting the biological needs of the species (rather than the 

interests of developers) will apply in Core Areas on BLM lands.

2109. For the purposes of the new federal policy on sage grouse, we recommend starting from a clean slate and designating core 

habitat areas that include all of the most populous leks in each state. In Wyoming, Core Area delineation started from this 

point, but lands proposed for oil and gas projects or existing development were subtracted. Later, additional lands were 

removed from protection at the behest of industrial interests wishing to pursue projects incompatible with sage grouse 

conservation inside designated Core Areas. This led to some fairly absurd outcomes, such as the removal of substantial 

acreage from a Core Area on White Mountain to the north of Rock Springs to allow a wind farm proposed by Whirlwind 

LLC; Whirlwind subsequently abandoned its proposal and moved its project more than 100 miles east, but the key sage 

grouse habitats remain excluded from Core Area protections. A number of other “adjustments” that were made to 

accommodate incompatible industrial projects inside Core Areas without triggering protections are denoted on the 

attached map. See Attachment 3. These debacles illustrate the need for consistent, rigorous standards across all states in the 

sage grouse’s range, the need to restore the original Core Area boundaries so that proposed projects can be brought into 

compliance with standards that protect sage grouse, and the need to prevent boundary adjustments and other exceptions 

that undermine Core Area protections moving forward.

WY Both emc0343GB

2110. There are a great many other flaws with the State of Wyoming’s Core Area boundaries as the currently stand. When the 

Core Areas were originally laid out, portions of the Atlantic Rim Coalbed Methane Project Area were excluded from Core 

at industry’s request despite the fact that they were pristine habitat with high-density sage grouse populations. If these lands 

had not been excluded, the Atlantic Rim CBM project would move forward in compliance with Core Area restrictions, 

resulting in a better outcome for sage grouse. In the Powder River Basin, a Core Area described in Sage Grouse 

Implementation team meetings as “the key-shaped Core”3 was gerrymandered to exclude potential coalbed methane 

deposits, and its boundary was drawn so that every sage grouse lek was right along the boundary of the Core, with lands 

unprotected from industrialization immediately adjacent to the leks. A great deal of unoccupied grassland non-habitat to the 

southwest was added to “compensate.” The end result, when development reaches the eastern boundary of the Core, is 

that the leks therein will likely be extirpated, while the unoccupied habitat added as window dressing will remain unoccupied; 

this Core therefore is incapable of functioning to protect sage grouse. According to Taylor et al. (2012:7), “questions remain 

regarding the ability of core areas in northeast Wyoming to support viable sage-grouse populations.” The cruel irony is that 

the Sage Grouse Implementation Team, in capitulating to the whims of the coalbed methane industry when designating the 

boundary for this Core, excluded lands that were at the time suitable sage grouse habitat and either undeveloped or only 

lightly impacted, in order to preserve the future option for drilling on lands which should by biological criteria have been 

designated as part of the Core Area. Today, highdensity drilling projects such as the Williams West Bear coalbed methane 

project have been proposed to be developed immediately on the boundary of the Core Area, within 0.6 mile of leks inside 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-427

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the Core. Approval of this project and others like it, on lands which should be managed as Priority Habitats, should be 

deferred until completion of this EIS process, whereupon the appropriateness of the project and necessary mitigation 

measures to be added as Conditions of Approval can be determined.

2111. BCA attendance at several Sage Grouse Implementation Team meetings has shown how the Core Areas have shifted still 

farther from sage grouse protection than they were in their initial, badly flawed first draft. In the South-Central Local 

Working Group area, for example, the initial draft of Core Areas purportedly excluded only areas where existing 

development degraded key habitats, although many key habitats that were (and are) still virtually pristine were excluded 

because development was potentially planned. Then, the SGIT was instructed to revise the Core Areas, and one of the 

criteria was to exclude areas where development was permitted, but had not yet occurred. In the final analysis, lands were 

excluded where important habitats were neither extant nor permitted, but where permitting was in process but years away 

(such as the Chokecherry wind project), where permits had not yet been sought out were planned over the span of decades 

(such as APDs in the Atlantic Rim CBM project), and where mining interests were held but even the future intent to seek a 

permit was speculative (in the case of uranium claims). Not to mention a new coal-to-liquids plant proposal which was 

gerrymandered out of Core. The Sage Grouse Implementation Team plans to redraw Core Areas every 5 years, and has 

shown a willingness to exclude prime and pristine habitats from Core status on the basis of new industrial proposals. The 

result is that Core Areas have been defined simply as the lands that industry doesn’t want, where threats are a remote 

possibility. Until the next round of industrial proposals, when heretofore “protected” lands, cause further redrawing of the 

boundaries. This is lunacy, not habitat management, and somebody needs to step in and fix it. That somebody, for federally 

owned lands and minerals, should be the BLM.

WY Both emc0343GB

2112. In Wyoming in particular, BLM should consider in detail at least one alternative that bases Wyoming Core Area boundaries 

solely on encompassing the most populous leks that make up 80 percent of the statewide sage grouse population, with no 

exclusions or gerrymandering for the convenience of industrial interests.

WY BLM emc0343GB

2113. NEPA requirements state that “no action concerning the proposal should be taken which would: (1) Have an adverse 

environmental impact; or (2) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.1(a). Catron County v. U.S Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 75 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996)(partial NEPA compliance is not enough.) The fact is that this basic, 

fundamental requirement that is the touchstone of every NEPA document has not gone unnoticed on the federal judiciary in 

sending back environmental studies that fail to meet this requirement. See e.g., Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. 

United States Atomic Energy Comm’n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (detailed EIS required to ensure that each 

agency decision maker has before him and takes into account all possible approaches to a particular project . . . which would

alter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit balance); Natural Resource Defense Council v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 93 

(2d Cir. 1975); ("The duty to consider reasonable alternatives is independent from and of wider scope than the duty to file 

an environmental statement."); Simmons v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 660 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The 

highly restricted range of alternatives evaluated and considered violates the very purpose of NEPA's alternative analysis 

requirement: to foster informed decision making and full public involvement.”); Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism v. 

Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental 

impact statement inadequate."); Dubois v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 1288 (1st Cir. 1996) (EIS invalid because 

WY BLM emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-428 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

agency did not consider alternative of using artificial water storage units instead of a natural pond as a source of snowmaking 

for a ski resort); Libby Rod & Gun Club v. Poteat, 457 F. Supp. 1177, 1187-88 (D. Mont. 1978), rev'd in part on other 

grounds, 594 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1979) (Army Corps violated NEPA in an EIS for a hydroelectric dam by only cursorily 

addressing the alternatives of meeting the Northwest's energy needs through other sources or conservation.); Northwest 

Envt’l Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520, 1538 (9th Cir. 1997) (“An agency must look at every 

reasonable alternative, with the range dictated by the nature and scope of the proposed action.”) The Council of 

Environmental Quality’s Frequently Asked Questions4 regarding NEPA, the agency states: 2a. Alternatives Outside the 

Capability of Applicant or Jurisdiction of Agency. If an EIS is prepared in connection with an application for a permit or other 

federal approval, must the EIS rigorously analyze and discuss alternatives that are outside the capability of the applicant or 

can it be limited to reasonable alternatives that can be carried out by the applicant? A. Section 1502.14 requires the EIS to 

examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. In determining the scope of alternatives to be considered, the emphasis 

is on what is "reasonable" rather than on whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of carrying out a 

particular alternative. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic 

standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant. 2b. Must the EIS 

analyze alternatives outside the jurisdiction or capability of the agency or beyond what Congress has authorized? A. An 

alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency must still be analyzed in the EIS if it is reasonable. A 

potential conflict with local or federal law does not necessarily render an alternative unreasonable, although such conflicts

must be considered. Section 1506.2(d). Alternatives that are outside the scope of what Congress has approved or funded 

must still be evaluated in the EIS if they are reasonable, because the EIS may serve as the basis for modifying the 

Congressional approval or funding in light of NEPA's goals and policies. Section 1500.1(a). Because having biologically based 

Core Area boundaries, rather than boundaries based on compromise between science and industrial preferences, is clearly 

within the scope of the Sage Grouse Plan Amendment process, the BLM has a legal obligation to consider such an alternative 

regardless of other considerations. In addition, the BLM may delineate different Core Areas than the State, providing 

expanded protections in cases where the State has capitulated to industry in areas where sage grouse needs and industry 

desires conflict. We expect the BLM to undertake this new analysis for the State of Wyoming, where Core Areas have been 

gerrymandered to the detriment of sage grouse. We propose a new delineation of Core Area boundaries to rectify the 

problematic boundaries adopted by the State, to be applied for the purposes of all federally managed projects that potentially 

affect sage grouse. See Attachment 4. These more robust Core Areas should be analyzed in detail in at least one alternative 

in the forthcoming EIS.

2114. Doherty (2008:125) mapped risk of impact versus value of sage grouse habitat. BLM should establish Core Areas in its RMP 

that protect all high-value sage grouse (both high and low risk); the state Core Area designations increasingly exclude High 

Value, High Risk sage grouse habitats from Core Area protections. Ironically, these are the habitats in greatest need of 

protection. This places the state in the inane position of “protecting” sage grouse in areas where the threat probability is 

remote, while denying protection in areas where the threats are real and imminent. The BLM should not follow this logically 

flawed strategy as it will not only fail to recover the sage grouse, but also will lead to increases in lek abandonment and 

decreases in overall sage grouse population, increasing the probability of Threatened or Endangered status for the grouse.

WY BLM emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-429

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2115. Areas of the Wyoming landscape where this Core model was developed provided much more continuous blocks of habitat. 

In contrast, much of the range-wide landscape where this model is being applied is very different. There is natural landscape 

heterogeneity and fragmentation, complex topography and varied interspersion of vegetation communities, as well as 

large-scale losses and anthropogenic fragmentation of habitat. The Core Model also allows 5% new development – even

within Core Areas. The mapping in Wyoming was done to favor the Oil and Gas industry’s interests – and omitted some 

very important sagebrush habitat areas targeted for extensive energy development.

WY Both emc0411GB

2116. How does this current process mesh with the flawed Process underway in Wyoming that is largely ignoring grazing impacts? 

This new process provides an opportunity for BLM to fully incorporate grazing disturbance analysis that has been excluded 

there. It is unclear what BLM proposes to do with Wyoming as an outcome of this process. The Core Model is already being 

shown to be failing in Wyoming. Wyoming sage-grouse populations in some areas span state lines, and sacrifices of habitats 

nd populations in Wyoming will affect other states, too.

WY Both emc0411GB

2117. The State of Wyoming is pursuing a sound policy with regard to wind power development in sage grouse habitat, that of 

excluding wind power development from designated Core Areas (although for several wind projects, Core Area boundaries 

have been shifted to exclude lands desired by the wind industry). Excluding wind power development from core habitats 

makes sense; in Wyoming, more than four million acres commercially viable for wind energy development are outside of 

Core Areas and have no other identified environmental conflicts (Molvar 2008), which represents approximately four times 

the maximum acreage needed for the high benchmark for wind development through 2030 (estimated at 10,000 turbines by 

the wind power industry). There are some real emerging problems, however, with Core Area boundaries being altered to 

allow wind projects to be built in lands originally designated as Core. The Power Company of Wyoming’s Chokecherry 

project is the most egregious example of these, and is a thousand-turbine project in recently undesignated Core habitat that 

is likely heading for litigation. Another example is a proposal by Whirlwind LLC for the South Pass Core Area; a carve-out 

was granted for this project, and although Whirlwind has thankfully relocated to another site in Carbon County, the 

carve-out remains.

WY Both emc0343GB

2118. Off-site mitigation is no substitute for on-site habitat conservation A great many vegetation manipulation projects are being 

undertaken in the name of sage grouse habitat improvement. In Wyoming, some of the more widespread programs are being 

undertaken by sage grouse Local Working Groups, the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (a federal project), the 

Sagebrush Conservation Initiative (an industry initiative), the Jonah Interagency Office (a joint industry/government 

operation), and the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Fund (funded through the state legislature). These 

projects are being pursued in the name of maximizing the number of acres treated for sage grouse (and often more primarily, 

livestock) benefit, without regard to whether the vegetation manipulations undertaken improve sage grouse habitat in the 

short or long term, result in short-and/or long-term impacts to sage grouse habitats and populations, or have no effect at all.

WY Both emc0343GB

2119. Public lands, and BLM-managed lands in particular, are key to sage grouse conservation and recovery. The BLM and Forest 

Service manage 58% of sage grouse habitat in Wyoming, while private landowners manage 38% (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Rowland et al (2006:2-9) observed, “The BLM has management authority for nearly 47% of the sagebrush in the [Wyoming 

Basins Ecoregion] study area (12.1 million acres), comparable to the 52% of sagebrush managed by BLM nationwide (Knick 

et al. 2003; Table 2.6; Fig. 2.7).” Indeed, according to Knick et al. (2003:627), “Responsibility for maintaining sagebrush 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-430 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-3

General Comments Related to the EISs

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

habitats and bird populations rests squarely on public land management agencies because most species’ summer ranges are 

owned publicly and managed by state or federal agencies.” Rowland et al (2006:1-2) echoed this conclusion: “Due to the 

preponderance of sagebrush on public lands, the future of this ecosystem will be shaped in large part by public lands 

management.” Yet over the past decade it has been the BLM that has been among the most recalcitrant opponents of 

changing land-use strategies.

2120. Standards for Sage Grouse Conservation In terms of standards that should be set in the sage grouse Plan Amendments, we 

endorse the recommendations in the Sage Grouse Recovery Alternative submitted by WildEarth Guardians, which we 

incorporate by reference into these comments. We would also like to point out that the National Technical Team 

recommendations harmonize with this alternative to a large extent, especially on oil and gas issues, and this document is a far 

more reasonable and common-sense approach than is currently embodied in the Wyoming BLM Instruction Memoranda.

WY Both emc0343GB

2121. As you craft this strategy and the policies to implement it, we urge you to stand firm behind strong conservation measures 

that reflect the biological requirements of the bird as elucidated in the science. This strategy should establish core habitats 

where sciencebased protection measures are applied, ensure that protection measures are sufficiently rigorous to prevent 

grouse declines and encourage grouse recovery, and close the loopholes in the Wyoming core area strategy in all cases 

where the federal government has habitat management authority.

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-431

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. The time of high bird numbers was when the livestock industry poisoned the predators with 1080 poison. This killed all 

predators (coyotes, lions, bobcats, badgers, foxes, eagles, ravens, crows and anything else that ate the birds or their eggs ). 

There were livestock, mines, roads, mining claim makers, fences and humans around then. When the 1080 poison was 

stopped the Sage Grouse population began its decline.

All Both rmc0022GB

2. If the petitioning groups want high numbers of birds, then we will have to use predator control again. This is the only 

management plan that will get the high bird numbers again.

All Both rmc0022GB

3. Further, MWGA's membership hopes to work cooperatively with the BLM to ensure that sage grouse do not become a listed 

species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If that were to occur, because of the restrictions it places on predator 

control methods, such ESA listing, would further inhibit the ability of Montana's sheep producers to effectively manage their 

ranges and to profit from their livestock operations.

All Both rmc0021GB

4. The EISs and SEISs must analyze the impact of predation as a leading cause of sage grouse mortality, and must analyze the 

benefit predator control efforts have on keeping sage grouse populations healthy.

All Both rmc0021GB

5. Predation, as it pertains to Sage Grouse management, is a major issue and its impact must be addressed as part of the EIS and 

SEIS process.

- Numerous studies indicate that predation by eagles, foxes, coyotes, badgers, ravens, etc. is a leading cause of sage grouse 

mortality in the West;

- This is not surprising as sage grouse are an easy prey species;

- Recent studies conducted in Wyoming indicate that predation can account for up to 80% of sage grouse chick mortality.

- Ravens, perhaps the primary predator of sage grouse, are now on the protected species list and the increase in raven 

numbers is certainly resulting in loss of sage grouse chicks.

- As a result, MWGA's membership believes that predation on sage grouse is a proper issue to be analyzed and addressed 

during the EIS/SEIS process.

All Both rmc0021GB

6. Promotion of Predator control efforts is key to sage grouse survival and the benefit of predator control programs must be 

analyzed.

- Predator control efforts and programs are critical for healthy sage grouse populations;

- Studies indicate that sage grouse populations have greater numbers in areas where aggressive predator control programs are 

conducted;

- At this point in time, it is clear to MWGA's membership that BLM management is not looking at, and is not taking seriously, 

the negative impact predator populations have on sage grouse populations in the West;

- As a result, MWGA's membership recommends that the BLM conduct a thorough analysis of predator control programs and 

their benefit as part of the EIS/SEIS process.

All Both rmc0021GB

7. The bottom line is that any proposed alternative must incorporate a predator control analysis. Landowners and individuals 

who live and work on the landscape in Montana understand based on years of on the ground observation that the elimination 

of predator control methods, namely the use of certain types of poisons, in the 1970s has resulted in a dramatic increase in 

predator populations which, in tum, has played a large role in sage grouse mortality. This view is supported by numerous 

scientific studies. See, L M. Cote and W.J. Sutherland, The effectiveness of removing predators to protect bird populations, 

All Both rmc0021GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-432 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Conservation Biology II, 395-405 (1997); C.E. Braun, Sage grouse declines in western North America: what are the problems? 

Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 78, 139-156 (1998); M.J. Holloran and S.H. 

Anderson, Spatial distribwion of greater sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats, Condor, 107, 742-752 

(2005); W.M. Batterson and W.B. Morse, Oregon sage grouse, Oregon Fauna Series I, Oregon Game Commission, Portland, 

OR, USA (1948); MJ. Willis, G.P. Keister, Jr., D.A. Immell, D.M Jones, R.M. Powell, and K.R. Durbin, Sage grouse in Oregon, 

Wildlife Research Report 15, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland. OR. USA (1993).

8. Further, MWGA's membership strongly recommends that the BLM analyze the importance and benefits of:

a. Mandatory coordination with local, state and tribal governments. These entities should be granted full cooperating agency 

status;

b. Incorporating scientific data and/or findings specific to local Sage Grouse populations and sharing such data with 

cooperators and coordinators;

c. Mandatory incorporation of current state and local management plans and deference to the same, if such plans are in 

existence (which is required under SecI4(g)(I) of the ESA);

d. Seeking the guidance of local expertise and local landowners;

e. And recognition of local customs activities, land uses and historic economic generating industries, such as timber, mining, 

and agriculture.

All BLM rmc0021GB

9. MWGA recommends that BLM establish a base line sage grouse number to measure the success or failure of sage grouse 

management.

All BLM rmc0021GB

10. - In order to better understand and to better measure the success of BLM's sage grouse management policies, MWGA's 

membership recommends that the BLM determine and set forth sage grouse management population numbers for various 

years and over time. For example, MWGA's members recommend that the agency denote sage grouse numbers in 1972, 

1992, and 2012 by area and/or by region.

- Establishing sage grouse population numbers would help the agency better track and understand the success of its sage 

grouse management policies both looking back and going forward.

All BLM rmc0021GB

11. If Sage Grouse numbers have declined to the point that they are considered to be put on the Endangered Species list it seems 

logical that they not be hunted. In Idaho there is presently a hunting season for Sage Grouse.

All Both rmc0030GB

12. I would submit that decreasing predation (mainly coyotes) would be the most beneficial benefit to increasing numbers at the 

present time.

All Both rmc0030GB

13. It is not justifiable to have Sage Grouse on the ''Endangered Species'' list and hunt them at the same time. All Both rmc0030GB

14. Priority Habitat Areas need to be qualified. What is the definition? What was the data used to determine the boundary? What 

is the bird density? How did they measure that bird density and can the bird density be proven? Who made the determination 

and what were their qualifications to do so?

All Both rmc0027GB

15. In a recent Six County Natural Resource Committee meeting, the SCAOG invited a Sage Grouse Conservation Specialist 

from Utah State University Extension (USU) to educate regional officials about the Sage Grouse, its habitat and management 

requirements for sustained and increased population growth. We were impressed by the many years of extensive research 

All Both rmc0034GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-433

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and data collection on the Sage Grouse that USU has compiled.

From this training, we gained a greater appreciation for the factual realization that a Sage Grouse population flourishes when 

the following are managed properly: 1) Sage Brush - It is evident and we understand that new growth on sagebrush is their 

primary fed source and is critical to a thriving Sage Grouse population. Research data has demonstrated that vegetation 

management practices that stimulate new growth or regrowth of sage brush are responsible, in part, for dramatic increase in 

grouse population. We request that this condition be attained through grazing, where possible, and with other mechanical or 

chemical methods as alternatives for old growth sagebrush. 2) Predator Control- Management of predators is a must in 

maintaining a healthy Sage Grouse population. We request that a more aggressive predator control program be initiated in 

Sage Grouse Populated areas. 3) "One Size fits All" - Finally, but perhaps most importantly, is we believe that each Sage Grouse 

Lek and associated area of habitat must be managed individually for their unique needs and deficiencies. We believe that an 

across the board approach to Sage Grouse management will compromise the overall goals and objectives of the Planning 

Strategy and have a significant negative impact on multiple land uses.

16. We are greatly concerned about the general health of Sage Grouse population in that it has critical impacts in obtaining 

utilization of natural resources including grazing, mining, oil extraction, timber cutting, recreation, and etc., which is vitally 

important to our Region.

All Both rmc0034GB

17. Likewise I believe that all federal lands with Greater Sage-Grouse habitat should be included in the planning process, including 

the Mono Basin and Columbia Basin Distinct Population Segments of sage-grouse.

All Both rmc0020GB; 

rmc0004RM

18. Additional Land Use restrictions will not make any noticeable improvement to habitat for the sage grouse. The habitat is 

virtually unchanged. Keg Spring Wildlife Management Area has been virtually untouched for 20+ years with no competing uses. 

The area should be loaded with sage grouse if current BLM area resource management plans were detrimental to the sage 

grouse in other areas. Today there are few ifany sage grouse in the Keg Spring area-its not the habitat its something else!

All Both rmc0041GB

19. The BLM needs to focus on the Sage Grouses relationship to predators before creating any new land use restrictions. All Both rmc0041GB

20. Putting the Sage Grouse as an endangered species would limit or stop any land improvement thus curtailing growth and 

numbers of sage grouse and other species of wildlife.

All Both rmc0040GB

21. The sage grouse have two basic needs, large areas of sagebrush and water. All Both rmc0017GB

22. The sage grouse seem to prefer the waterholes which were dozed out in the big flats. When we had a dry summer we would

clean the silt out of the waterholes so they wouldn't get too shallow.

All Both rmc0017GB

23. We are very concerned about the domestic livestock grazing systems authorized by many of the administrative units ofthe 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Greater Sage-Grouse require sufficient cover for nesting 

(April and May), brood rearing (May, June, July) and survival, and it is our opinion that few grazing systems authorized by these 

administrative units provide adequate cover for these activities and during these times of the year to ensure sufficient 

reproductive success for Greater Sage-Grouse. Without adequate cover for nesting and brood rearing, it is our opinion-and 

the professional opinion of many scientists-that Greater Sage-Grouse populations will continue to decline throughout their 

range.

All Both emc0074GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-434 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

We believe that nearly all grazing systems need to incorporate adequate rest or very low livestock stocking rate (>35% annual

utilization) to enablethe native vegetation to maintain its health and vigor and to provide adequate cover for Greater 

SageGrouse and other grassland/shrubland birds. To provide for successful nesting and brood rearing, good cover is needed 

in the spring from the previous years growth and in the spring and summer from the current years growth. Even with less than 

35% utilization, many areas near water sources can be overgrazed and ultimately provide poor nesting and brood-rearing 

success.

24. Currently the greater sage grouse can be found in sagebrush habitat in approximately 454,000 acres in the 11 western states. 

The population in Utah amounts for about II % of the total range wide population. Sagebrush rangelands provide suitable 

habitat for the sage grouse on approximately 11,000 square miles and is composed of Federal, State and Private rangelands.

All Both rmc0001GB

25. It has been proven that it is impossible to determine an exact population number of sage grouse and we are therefore left to 

biologists to tell those making decisions for the management to lands what is required to satisfy the sage grouse needs. The 

biggest problem is that the sage grouse are so dumb that they are unable to read the literature witten about their needs and 

requirements. For example, the biologist tells us that we can continue to hunt this species and that taking a given number will 

not affect the continuation of the population. Yet, the predator impact on the populations continues to have a large affect on 

the numbers.

All Both rmc0001GB

26. Enclosed in the form of my comments is an article on the effects of predation on the sage grouse. The article further suggests 

that activities in sage grouse areas may be more of a benefit than a detriment. 

In the instance of predation on sage Grouse there have been several studies that indicate its having a huge impact on the 

grouse populations. However, the "scientific community" always makes efforts to try to discredit these findings in an effort not 

to have to deal with problem.

As to the effects of activities in sage grouse areas possibly being a benefit to the grouse populations, I realize that the research 

is new. (as per the article attached) However, I don't feel it should be so rapidly dispatched, due to lack of science, as is done 

by Mr. Keefe in the article.

Furthermore, there is research being done by the University of Idaho, which demonstrates the impact that grazing has on 

increasing the insects necessary for the diets of the young sage grouse chicks, and the importance those insects have on the 

young chicks survival.

All Both rmc0012GB

27. PPH and PGH areas have been identified by BLM working with State wildlife agencies as breeding, late brood rearing and 

winter concentration areas.

A) buffer distance needs to have flexibility to consider:

Consider cliffs and elevation differences.

Established barriers

B) Any plan must establish consistency for the beginning measuring points for buffers. Buffer polygons should be created from

All Both rmc0004GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-435

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

center of the PPH or PGH area. Observation data shall be the priority for setting buffers, timing and seasonal restrictions. If 

no observations data is available and preclude that type of determination: the data used must be scientifically supportable 

under the elements of the Federal Data Quality Act.

D) timing flexibility is needed; fixed dates are not always necessary or effective: time of again may not be necessary; the 

flexibility of these standards shall be based on monitoring and observation

28. In creating PPH/PGH mapping suitability of the terrain and preservation of other values should be considered. 

PPH boundaries should preclude lands within these polygons based on topography adaptability and behavior of sage grouse. In 

many areas 100% of a polygon is not necessarily Sage Grouse habitat.

All Both rmc0004GB

29. From this training, we gained a greater appreciation for the factual realization that a Sage Grouse population flourishes when 

the following three things are managed properly: sage brush, predator control, and "one size fits all".

All Both fxc0004GB

30. Last but not least "one size fits all" is important because we believe that each Sage Grouse Lek and associated arc of habitat 

must be managed individually for their own unique needs. We believe that an across the board approach to Sage Grouse 

management will compromise the overall goals and objectives of the planning strategy and have a significant negative impact on 

multiple land uses.

All Both fxc0004GB

31. Well it's time for a NEEDED CHANGE. We out west want a new mission statement, and clarification, of the goals to be 

reached in listing and delisting of a species. Many of us who live in sage brush country and observe sage grouse regularly don't 

see a problem with the existing grouse habitat, as there are more than 160 million acres of public and private sage brush lands. 

What we ARE short of are birds!!

All Both rmc0047GB

32. I have seen a large increase in sage grouse the last couple of years. The fires are the number one cause of loss. All Both emc003GB

33. Your website acknowledges that: "Sage grouse have declined in numbers due to loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 

sagebrush habitats essential for their survival," yet the scoping letter we received and your website give no details as to how 

the BLM plans to recover and restore lost, degraded, or fragmented sagebrush habitat to meet the needs of sage grouse and 

other sagebrush-obligate species. Surely, you must have some management strategies and restoration methods in mind?

All Both rmc0039GB

34. Your website also recognizes that: "Greater sage grouse now occupy only about 56% of the habitat that was available to them 

before the arrival of settlers of European descent." So- what are the BLM's plans to recover lost habitat? There should be 

analysis as to where former habitat existed and what parts of it are recoverable and as to how these areas could be reinstated 

as sage grouse habitat.

All Both rmc0039GB

35. Sage grouse are clearly a keystone species for the viability and vitality of other sagebrush-dependent species. They should 

therefore be classified as a Management Indicator Species as well as an Endangered species, with their protection being given 

top priority accordingly. There should also be analysis done as to the habitat needs of other sagebrush-dependent and obligate 

species which may be additional to or different from the needs of sage grouse.

All Both rmc0039GB

36. However sage grouse are not adapted to livestock grazing, utility and transportation corridors, toxic herbicides, and 

development, which eradicate and fragment their habitat. So conservation plans should be focused on removing these and 

other unnatural threats to sage grouse survival and vitality and on restoring lost habitat wherever possible.

All Both rmc0039GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-436 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

37. Detrimental activites in core sage grouse habitat must be stopped and lost historic habitat must be recovered and restored as 

suitable habitat to the maximum extent possible. Leaving too much discretion to District managers to do less than what is 

necessary will replicate the status quo and inevitably lead to uplisting.

All Both rmc0039GB

38. The DEIS should discuss specific approaches for conserving interstate migratory populations like the one regularly moving 

between parts of southwest Montana and eastern Idaho. The implication for the draft EIS is that it should consider not only 

resident grouse populations, but also migratory populations and the requistite habitat connecting seasonal grouse habitats. 

Continue the monitoring and study of interstate and instate migrations to better understand movements and habitat 

requirements.

All Both rmc0028GB

39. The core area "priority habitat" is appallingly bad for Idaho. Idaho has already lost so much sagebrush that protecting all that 

remains is the only way to sustain populations. Core=Triage=Sacrifice=Impossible to maintain viable population.

All Both cfc0003GB

40. Sage-grouse habitat has been seriously modified by grazing, vegetative treatments, fire and plant succession (under current 

environmental conditions)

All Both cfc0016GB

41. Please also rely upon sage-grouse experts such as Clait Brown and Jack Connelley. Please include ALL the factors (variable) 

impacting native sage habitats including domestic livestock, fences, whatever, windmills ravens, hunting.

All Both cfc0022GB

42. We need predator control to help let the chick grow up. All Both cfc0024GB

43. The Strawberry poplulation is increasing and listing will stop our efforts to improve habitat. All Both cfc0017GB

44. Salazar's 1M pointed out several concerns with sage grouse habitat and did not list the major cause for population declines i.e. 

predators and hunting. A prime example is that Raven and Red Fox have rapidly increased in populations and are creating the 

heaviest impact on the Sage Grouse population. Also, when states allow hunting of a species, it has a direct toll on that 

population that is often not fully measured i.e. illegal hunting, over bag limits and wounded birds.

All Both cfc0017GB

45. With a number of state and local groups pushing hard to develop sage grouse conservation strategies, the National Wildlife 

Federation opposes a federal endangered species listing. I also oppose the listing of the Greater Sage Grouse as an endangered 

species

All Both cfc0017GB

46. In order to manage the Sage-grouse you have to illiminate their predators and the same time the deer herd will come back 

with the grouse.- Control all predators - keep the grazing going and do more improvements.

All Both cfc0025GB

47. If you want Sage hens or phesants or deer or bighorn sheep. You have to control their predators. This should be elemental 

education. I should say control them I should say eliminate them. You need to control DWR which protects these 

predators.

All Both cfc0026GB

48. Preadtors are a major cause of sage-grouse decline in our area, coyotes, ravens, eagles, foxes, etc. All Both cfc0027GB

49. Scientific research indicates that properly managed grazing is beneficial to the greater sage-grouse and to a host of other 

wildlife. Grazing can improve sage-grouse habitat by increasing the quality and accessibility of forbs and other beneficial 

vegetation and also aids in the control of invasive plant species.

All Both emc0202GB

50. Management of habitat for the greater sage-grouse occurs on a complex sagebrush dominated landscape with tremendous 

variability locally and range wide. It is ecologically impossible to regulate for improved sage-grouse performance with 

All Both emc0202GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-437

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

species-specific regulatory measures.

51. The extensive encroachment of pinyon-juniper into sagebrush communities, coupled with vast expanses of decadent single 

aged sagebrush communities, has drastically decreased productive habitat for nesting and brood rearing sites for sage-grouse 

throughout the Great Basin and much of the West. The proposed range-wide guidelines do not recognize the variability of 

issues across the west and do not focus on or prioritize specific issues at the needed scale.

All Both emc0202GB

52. The decrease of livestock grazing public lands has directly contributed to the degradation of sagebrush and other habitat due

to the loss of consistent grazing activities that help initiate fresh habitat growth. The theory that the European settlers 

somehow caused loss of habitat and changes to the Sage-Grouse habitat and populations is not a plausible concept. Elko 

County has taken countless public testimony and researched many historical documents and journals of settlers, pioneers and 

explorers that expressed and documented that Sage-Grouse or any type of wildlife was not as abundant in our region before 

western settlement as many would believe. It has been documented by many lifelong ranchers, hunters and recreationist that 

that the Sage-Grouse and wildlife populations did not increase until settlers and ranchers established ranching and farming 

operations and livestock grazing was introduced to the west.

All Both rmc0026GB

53. Sage grouse are an integral resource in the American west. It is extremely important that their habitat be preserved. In order 

to do this, certain restrictions must be placed on use of off-road vehicles, siting of large energy projects, and activities which 

can have the effect of destroying lands and waters. I urge you to do a complete inventory of sage grouse habitat and then 

impose proper restrictions. There also needs to be a count of the birds in each location. This should be followed by 

monitoring what is happening on the land and to the populations.

All Both emc0201GB

54. Some manageable issues, ideas and options that should be addressed in and EIS can be broken down into the following 

principal points. 

1. Hunting Pressure both legal and illegal.

All Both emc0200GB

55. Some manageable issues, ideas and options that should be addressed in and EIS can be broken down into the following 

principal points. 

3. Habitat Loss

All Both emc0200GB

56. Illegal hunting must be controlled more effectively. In at least one case I am aware of, many years ago, a population of sage 

grouse was virtually exterminated by local indians exercising their "indigenous rights" to hunt out of season. They continued

hunting the population off season until there was no longer a viable breeding population left. State fish and game departments 

are generally to afraid of the back lash to enforce hunting regulations for indians. This deplorable situation must be stopped. 

Indigenous rights should be limited to historical hunting techniques, and not allow the use of high power rifles and shotguns 

out of normally set hunting season. Sage grouse habitat should be monitored more closely for illegal hunting, especially 

during the non-hunting season when much of the poaching takes place.

All Both emc0200GB

57. Legal Hunting Pressure should also be more effectively regulated. The current practice of simply limiting daily bag limits is

completely inadequate to manage and monitor bag limits for a species. A much more effective technique would be to issue 

tags, with a limit on the number of tags (maybe 5 or 10) anyone individual could have in a season. This season limit could be 

in conjunction with a daily bag limit of perhaps one or two birds per hunter to prevent excesively heavy collection in the event 

All Both emc0200GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-438 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of an abnormal population concentration. Upon success the individual would have to affix the tag to tile grouse probably the 

wing as is currently done with the whistling swan tags, and then would have a fixed amount of time (1 week) to take the tagged 

animal or part of the animal to an appropriate officer who would record the success. Upon reaching a set number of success's 

the season would close upon 24 or 48 hours notice that could be posted on appropriate websites.

58. Various sage grouse population figures show a decline after the 1972 1080 ban. However, population figures in Oregon over 

the past 30 years suggest stable populations which is an indicator of what they may have been historically. Therefore, Oregon

chose 2003 as a baseline for spring level breeding numbers. Idaho, in the meantime, chose a baseline based on population data 

taken prior to the 1080 ban which is unrealistic.

All Both cfc0030GB

59. Don't Reinvent the wheel. Look at areas with stable populations and imitate them. All Both cfc0031GB

60. Let us protect the leks, control the predators and actually manage the land, not lock the area up and call that good 

management!

All Both cfc0035GB

61. I have two ideas thaT I think should be tried to help sage grouse neither is comlicated or expensive. The first would be 

targetted predator control in specifc areas during a specific time. The area would be just in nesting areas. The time would be 

when grouse are most susceptible to predation: during nesting and when the chicks are young. The main predators to target 

would be hawks and ravens. Especially ravens, which are very smart. Use shotguns for this predator control.

All Both cfc0036GB

62. The second idea is to transplant sage grouse from areas with lots of them to areas with few. At least try it, see if it works. 

Don't wait for the EIS, do it now.

All Both cfc0036GB

63. The reason for low sage-grouse numbers are #1. No Predator control, raptors, wolves, ravens, coyotes, foxes, etc. 

historically this was done by the sheepmen, at that time, birds were plentiful.

All Both cfc0041GB

64. Increase the amount/number of ravens that can be killed especially around garbage dumps, harvested fields, grain and animal 

feed facilities. The number of road kills to be picked up promptly and covored.

All Both cfc0044GB

65. We cannot expect to maintain current population numbers if we do not protect and manage all the seasonal habitat. And, it 

is important to remember that current population numbers are not sufficient to prevent the grouse from being listed under 

the endangered species protection.

All Both emc0181GB

66. In areas where sagebrush steppe has become fragmented by perennial grassland seedings, invasion of annual grassland 

following fire, agricultural development, or infrastructure development (including all transmission lines not just the larger ones 

and wind development) it will be important to develop ways to reconnect these fragmented sagebrush steppe areas. 

Understanding both how sage-grouse now use these areas as well as how they traditionally used them before fragmentation 

will be key to recovering sage-grouse. Therefore, all infrastructure development must be mapped and their management 

coordinated to prevent continued habitat fragmentation.

All Both emc0181GB

67. Finally, I recommend that all sagebrush steppe, and perennial grassland and annual grassland adjacent to or surrounded by 

sage-grouse habitat be placed into an undetermined status and managed for sage-grouse. Some of these areas may be used by 

low numbers of sage-grouse now but become vitally important to sage-grouse in the future as populations recover. If we 

continue to exclude these areas it may become impossible to maintain a recovered greater sage-grouse species in the future.

All Both emc0181GB

68. Habitat Restoration and Conservation: Habitat restoration and conservation will be a key factor in maintaining a viable All Both emc0180GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-439

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

population of the species. Two major factors contributing to sage-grouse habitat loss are of concern.

69. There is a pressing need for timely, regular, accurate, and reliable monitoring of habitat conditions and bird populations based 

on measured data rather than subjective assessments. If we cannot objectively monitor, we cannot manage.

All Both emc0169GB

70. Plans should address cumulative impacts of nearby land disturbance activities on habitat suitability for all stages of the species 

life cycle: wintering, breeding, and brooding

All Both emc0169GB

71. Fish and Wildlife Service assumes that existing regulations do not protect sage-grouse from extinction. This idea is false. They 

concluded that only 5,000 grouse are needed to avoid extinction. There are currently far more than 5,000 of these birds in 

existing wilderness areas which ara already subject to the kind of rules you claim are needed to protect grouse from so-called 

threats to their existence. It seems to me that the rules governing wilderness already protect more sage-grouse than needed 

to prevent their listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

All Both emc0160GB

72. The similarity between wilderness regulatory restrictions and the rules proposed to protect sage grouse, and the ability of 

existing wilderness areas to provide for the minimum sustainable populations of sage-grouse (a total of 5,000 birds) is an issue 

that needs to be evaluated.

All Both emc0160GB

73. You are intentionally shifting the focus from management that complies with the ESA to management that greatly expands 

your power, and reduces my freedom. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044 reports that the sage-grouse planning strategy

will "maintain genetic diversity needed for sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations," which is consistent with the ESA. 

That same Memorandum references A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures and implements its 

guidelines. That Report endorses a goal based upon existing numbers to "sustain these populations." The Report shifts the goal 

to "sustain" current populations, rather than to maintain "sustainable" populations to avoid extinction as required by the ESA. 

So, the Memorandum states that the goal of sage-grouse planning is to manage for "sustainable" populations, but deceptively 

expands that goal by instructing all BLM field officers in all program areas to comply with an alternative goal to "sustain" 

current populations, 350,000 sage-grouse (70 times as many as the "sustainable" number of 5,000). The purpose for the 

sage-grouse planning effort is reportedly to implement management guidelines through land use plans that will reduce the 

need to list the species under the ESA. Thus, the overarching population goal for sage-grouse must be based upon the ESA 

requirement to maintain sustainable populations that are not at risk of extinction, not to maintain existing populations that are 

far larger. The scope of the planning effort, and associated issues to be addressed, are constrained by the overarching goal.

All Both emc0160GB

74. After attending the January 18th, 2012 Sage Grouse Stakeholders meeting in Carson City,Nv., I was encouraged by all the 

experts and agency heads agreeing that they do not want to list the Sage Grouse, and that with proactive measures the Sage 

Grouse should not need to be listed as endangered.

All Both emc0114GB

75. it seems the first thing that should be done is to stop hunting them for a few years, and see what effect that has. All Both emc0157GB

76. The Federal Register notice for a "warranted but precluded" listing of the sage grouse should provide some guidance to the EIS 

on the (d) issue above. How will the BLM consider this document as "more adequate regulatory mechanisms" are considered?

All Both emc0071GB

77. Fragmentation is listed as a focus. Will there be an analysis of where, when and how fragmentation on public lands is occurring? 

If wildfire is determined to be a major cause of fragmentation how will it be controlled by regulation? How will any new 

wildfire regulation be coordinated with the many other regulations on fire? It would seem that if man’s activities are the cause 

All Both emc0071GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-440 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of fragmentation that a projection of planned or possible projects might help in the analysis.

78. The Beaverhead Co. Board of Commissionors are concerned that the Sage-grouse planning process not add further 

restrictions on noxious weed control methods on domestic livestock grazing alotments and on the use of fire for vegatation 

management.

All Both cfc0051GB

79. Also, the greater increase of avain predators on sage-grouse should be documented. All Both cfc0051GB

80. The REMAINING Habitat is much diminished from historic levels and the sage grouse will certainly be lost with further 

degredation of the areas that remain. Although I live in thre east , I spend some time each year traveling around the west. It 

would be an terrible cost to loose any or all population of this wonderful american icon.

All Both emc0073GB

81. To insure this species survives, and hopefully once again thrives, I believe a basic change in approach to management of these 

lands must occur. The management must focus first on the habitat needed for these birds (and for other wildlife dependent on 

this high desert environment) and then, using best available science, undertake practices that properly protect the habitat, 

including steps to try to reconnect the currently isolated areas where some populations of the birds still survive in reasonable 

numbers.

All Both emc0065GB

82. The bigger picture of specie and habitat decline is one which needs to be more carefully considered. In other areas 

(particularly in the western states) habitat loss responsible for declining numbers of ungulates as well as other animals. Rather 

than focus on correction of habitat loss (such as planting trees, and/or whatever else constitutes habitat) the declining 

numbers are currently being primarily blamed on predators. This causes long term concern because after predators are 

reduced, and numbers still decline, who will shoulder the blame for these losses?

All Both emc0064GB

83. Stop hunting of these birds - pernits allowed in all western stetes and area you are targeting. All Both cfc0057GB

84. One thing the BLM and Forest Service need to realize is that results will not show as long as there is still a hunting on 

sage-grouse. The BLm and Forest Service need to take the stand that the states need to stop shooting them and let there 

nembers rebound back to a level where hunting could resume again when populations recover.

All Both cfc0058GB

85. Basically from years of living in the Great Basin and from the BLM map display I think one salient problem is that so much 

critical Sage-grouse habitat is also designated as grazing allotment

All Both cfc0066GB

86. When will that mapping be updated to show 2010 and 2011 data? That should be available by now since the lek counts would 

have been in April 2011? If we start out already two years behind, it seems to me that a rosier picture will be painted of 

conditions. It can't be too hard to run the models that Doherty et al did and use current data

All Both emc0026GB

87. Time's running out. No more conversion of sage to crested wheatgrass, no more fencing for livestock management to the 

detriment of all wildlife, no more off road vehicle use, no more wide open coal and natural gas extraction.

All Both emc0058GB

88. Everything being done out on the ground must be in support of preserving and enhancing what little sage habitat remains. This

will require a full agency flip-flop in priorities from decades of managing for livestock and resource extraction first to now 

managing for wildlife first.That following the BLM's National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy is one of your criteria for this 

process provides little confidence in your approach since this strategy has proven to be inadequate at least as applied to date. 

Your agencies have two choices - do it right now while pockets of these species and their habitats remain, or wait until a 

All Both emc0058GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-441

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

cascade of listings occurs and then try and catch up after it's too late, e.g. northwest spotted owl and salmon.

89. I have participated in local meeting dealing with grazing decisions. When Sage Grouse issue comes up you hear comments 

from the ranching/oil community like, "why are you always putting animals over humans", or "the preditors are killing off all the 

Sage Grouse, there is no problem with habitat", or from the local BLM PR person, "we are doing everything right, we have no 

problem with habitat".

All Both emc0057GB

90. In Montana, the State BLM director instead of changing grazing practices, from the massive data available, requested 

information "Data Request for the Annual Review of the Greater Sage- Grouse Candidate Status" Here is some of the 

information I have found in the above study:

The status of sage grouse populations and habitats has been a concern to sportsmen and biologists for >80 years. Despite 

management and research efforts that date to the 1930s, breeding populations of this species have declined throughout much 

of its range. In May 1999, the western sage grouse (C.urophasianus phaiosArtemisia spp.). Despite the well-known importance 

of this habitat to sage grouse and other sagebrush obligates, the quality and quantity of sagebrush habitats have declined for at 

least the last 50 years.

All Both emc0057GB

91. Seasonal movements and home range

Sage grouse display a variety of annual migratory patterns . Populations may have: 1) distinct winter, breeding, and summer 

areas; 2) distinct summer areas and integrated winter and breeding areas; 3) distinct winter areas and integrated breeding and 

summer areas; or 4) well-integrated seasonal habitats (nonmigratory populations). Seasonal movements between distinct 

seasonal ranges may exceed 50 miles which complicates attempts to define populations. Thus this study suggested that sage 

grouse populations be defined on a temporal and geographic basis.

All Both emc0057GB

92. Per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this bird deserves protection under the Endangered Species Act even if it is not 

currently listed. Treat the species as listed and implement the proper protections as if it were currently listed. Do not wait for 

it to be too late.

All Both emc0055GB

93. Habitat loss and degradation have been shown to be the major cause of decline of this species. Therefore, is important to 

involve all federal agencies holding land, as good habitat can be shared by multiple jurisdictions

All Both emc0068GB

94. Connectivity is a loosely defined word that could be used to expand priority habitat areas. The EIS needs to address the 

definition of connectivity and specific parameters used for determinations and boundary establishment. Corridors should not 

be managed as priority habitat areas. General sage-grouse habitats should not be reclassified as priority habitat to provide 

connectivity.

All Both emc0103GB

95. The severity and scope of the threats to greater Sage-Grouse should be provided and prioritized. Instead of a list of threats to 

habitat, please clarify in the EIS how large of a relative threat each are to the habitat areas. For example, if wildfires, epidemic, 

and hard rock mining are all threats, do fires account for 90 percent of the threat to sage grouse, epidemic 8 percent, and hard 

rock mining account for 2 percent of the threat? In calculating threat levels relative to each other, each threat can be managed 

more efficiently and resources better allocated in the protection effort. Management of lands for the protection of sage grouse 

should be proportionally managed according to the level of each threat.

All Both emc0103GB

96. I also hope distinctions are drawn between areas where sage grouse habitat and populations are dwindling, and those where All Both emc0107GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-442 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

they are holding their own, sage as Oregon, which holds an estimated 30 percent of the West's sage and has healthy, stable 

sage grouse numbers

97. #4 We question including greasewood in sagebrush grouse habitat. We have not seen sage grouse in greasewood, Hungarian 

Partridges, yes but not sage grouse. Do you have data to back this up?

All Both cfc0025RM

98. It is important that sage grouse conservation measures be enforceable and limit the discretion of mangers to ignore or modify 

recommended actions necessary to ensure the health and viability of sage grouse populations. Employee performance 

evaluations should include how well employees apply the sage grouse management recommendations as informed by the best 

available science.

All Both emc0078GB

99. It is critical to use and apply the best available science in the NEPA process. Recent science indicates that sage grouse are likely 

more far-ranging than previously realized and they require habitat conservation at larger scales. We are concerned that the 

recommendations in Connelly et al (2004) and other science/policy documents are partly the result of politics rather than 

science and that those recommendations have been watered down and do not represent the optimal management for sage 

grouse and their habitat. The NEPA process should clearly identify what is biologically and ecologically optimal for sage grouse, 

as distinguished from what is politically pragmatic.

All Both emc0078GB

100. I do not believe they are endangered at this time. All Both emc0336GB

101. I do not believe sage grouse are under any threat of being endangered as their numbers are well above the recommended 

number of 5000 that would qualify them to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I have seen reports of bird counts 

taken by the USFWS that had a count of Sage Grouse over a 12 month period from 350,000 to 535,000 birds.

All Both emc0286GB

102. Efforts should continue to improve the Habitat throughout the BLM controlled lands. All Both emc0217GB

103. The "Preliminary Categories for Planning Issues" does not specifically include "Predation". I believe this to be a significant 

detriment and threat to Sage-Grouse recovery. As such, this must be included as you consider the issues affecting the 

Sage-Grouse. Birds of Prey, coyotes and cats are a continual threat since they inhabit the same environment.

All Both emc0033GB

104. It is hard for me to believe the accuracy of the "US Fish and Wildlife Service Identified Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse" graph. 

The graph shows Human threat being equal to Predation. The vast area of Sage-Grouse habitat is affected by off road and 

human use occasionally, however, predators are present all of the time.

All Both emc0033GB

105. I've seen the period of time when sage grouse numbers were high and there is one reason that stands out as to why sage 

grouse numbers are lower. That reason is Predators. Since 1972 the number of coyote, Crows and Raven, fox and hawks, have 

increased considerably. In 1972 the use of 1080 for predator control was removed. Cattle and sheep ranchers, government 

trappers and wildlife experts used the predicide to kill coyote and in the process where it was put on carcasses it also killed 

crows and ravens and other predators that consumed the carcass. In 1972 the Ravens were protected via a treaty with 

Mexico. In 1972 the remainder of the Hawks became protected. In the last 30 year I've seen the population of fox increase

many fold. These all prey on Sage Grouse and other ground nesting birds from the nest to adult stages. The problem with Sage 

Grouse is not so much the habitat but rather the predators!

All Both emc0032GB

106. So what can you do as land managers to improve the habitat for sage grouse considering the main problem is predators?

#`1. Develope as many water developments for livestock as possible. The more water you have available the better 

All Both emc0032GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-443

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

distribution of livestock and wildlife will be and the better the habitat for sage grouse. I'd encourage water developments to 

allow some water to flow out of the troughs and into dirt collection tanks which is preferred for use by sage grouse

107. 4. Coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to establish predator control of the Raven and Crows that are the main 

depredator of Sage Grouse nests and nests of other ground nesting birds. We know that Ravens have also pecked the eyes out 

of baby calves and thus we know they use this same method on baby antelope and deer. If you truly want to make an 

improvement in the population of sage grouse predator control is certainly a wise tool that must be employed

All Both emc0032GB

108. Loss of habitat is less than decline in bird population whereas one would expect just the opposite of such a mobile and broadly 

adapted bird.

All Both emc0038GB

109. There are oceans of suitable historic habitat lacking sage grouse. All Both emc0038GB

110. The systemic regional decline includes many areas where habitat changes have been few and subtle. All Both emc0038GB

111. If it were habitat, the probability of practical improvement on anything like the scale needed to bring back sage hens in a 

significant portion of their range in a useful time frame is minute. But I strongly doubt that habitat is high on the list of limiting 

factors, and indeed much fine-looking habitat is vacant or scantily occupied throughout MT.

All Both emc0038GB

112. Time is of the essence. To avoid listing and restrictions that will make your proposed efforts look feeble, BLM must identify 

causal factors now. The response variable must be the birds themselves, not vegetation monitoring or some assumed but 

unproven tertiary variable. I suggest bird harvest or something similar. Not leks. Not nests. Not chicks, but birds that ideally 

have survived to reproductive age or an approximation thereof

All Both cfc0038GB

113. Focus on hypotheses, whether they fit your reigning paradigm or not, that can be quickly modified and monitored for several 

years, not decades. A few examples follow:

1. Small predator control such as skunks, fox, raccoons if appropriate, and even ground squirrels.

2. Raptor control especially in light of additional man-made perching sites. When I was a kid, we trapped hawks and owls with 

leg-hold tracks on pole sets. Surely you can get a variance to do this. I have seen almost unbelievable raptor densities in places 

that historically had dense sage grouse populations. And I have seen many sage hens furtively looking upward as they hide 

under a bush.

3. West Nile – are uninfected populations doing better than infected ones in similar habitat not too distant?

4. Do domestic sheep through their nibbling of sagebrush promote succulent sagebrush leaves that benefit sage grouse?

5. I have seen my share of road hunting for sage hens and find my best hunting in restricted access areas or as far from roads 

as possible. We’re not talking energy development traffic but hunter traffic, excessive vehicular access.

All Both emc0038GB

114. As an avian biologist, my main recommendation on the EIS would be to amass the best research data currently available, in an 

attempt to ascertain the most realistic estimates possible regarding all the various demographic factors of this species.

All Both emc0041GB

115. Of particular interest to the drafters of the EIS should be the determination of the magnitude of the many possible sage-grouse 

mortality factors, and particularly those that are human caused or human influenced.

All Both emc0041GB

116. For instance...... in sage grouse occupied habitat........

1) What do we know about the incident of sage grouse collision mortality rates caused by:

1) barb wire fences (# deaths per year per 100 miles of fence)

All Both emc0041GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-444 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2) high level power lines ( " 100 miles of line)

3) low level power lines ( " )

4) utility poles and towers ( " )

5) other artificial structures.

117. What do we know about the incidence of raptor predation rates on sage grouse that occur:

1) in unaltered areas with no fences or utility structures within 2 miles of a lek,

2) in areas with only a few fence lines in line‐of‐sight of a lek,

3) in areas with only utility poles or towers in line‐of‐sight of a lek,

4) in areas with both fences and utility poles or towers in line‐of‐sight of a lek.

All Both emc0041GB

118. What is known about grouse movements in late summer, fall and winter, outside of the time period of their courtship, 

breeding, nesting and brood rearing activities?

1) What kinds of habitats are utilized during the dispersal of juveniles?

2) How much seasonal movement occurs between the breeding range of a population and where the individuals from that 

population spend the winter (migratory? or resident?)

3) Are there travel corridors that are ecologically important but pose additional hazards?

All Both emc0041GB

119. What has been the human impact on the availability of potential sage grouse habitat..... intact contiguous sage brush areas 

versus habitat loss and fragmentation, etc. ...... as a result of:

1) agricultural cropland development and management.

2) subdivision and other human residential conversion.

3) road system development.

4) utility corridors and other developments.

All Both emc0041GB

120. One of the other problems is the Crows and Ravens well open the hunting season up for a longer period of time and put a list 

on them or put a bounty on them. I know you will say that is against the migratory bird act or some such. You are going to have 

to make up your mind which endangered species you are going to protect first and you can’t take man out of the equation, 

because he is/was/ will be here and he is the one that is paying all the bills‐‐‐money wise, loss of habitat wise, public land use 

wise, economic /social impacts, and list goes on.

All Both emc0045GB

121. Still have hunting season ??? Is this a problem or not, according to your paper work it is not. All Both emc0045GB

122. Public land grazing in my opinion is not a problem, We have had grazing going on here since the 1870’s and with Salmon/ 

Steelhead, Cutthroat, and Bull trout being listed there has been a lot of fixes put in place, some smart ones and some don’t 

make a lick of sense, but done anyway.

All Both emc0045GB

123. ISSUE: Most LUP’s and the proposed Conservation Measures fail to address needing written vegetation objectives for a 

specific treatment area.

Habitat treatment planning often refers back to generalized objectives outlined in the LUPs such as “improve riparian 

condition for sage grouse” or “manage woodlands to maintain existing sage grouse habitat”. Specific vegetation objectives 

All Both emc0083GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-445

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

aren’t typically written, especially in BLM. These might read something like “reduce iris to 5% of the wet meadow community 

composition” or “increase mountain big sage cover to 60% of the community composition with grasses, forbs and other 

shrubs at or near 40%”. By using specific objective statements, it is easier to locate a treatment area with the most potential 

and be able to consider a whole array of treatment strategies. After treatment, one knows if the objective has been met or 

appears to be going in the right direction. The USFS often uses this approach. This is a BMP that should be included.

124. MONITORING

ISSUE: States are charged with sage grouse population and habitat inventory; it is impossible for states to perform this in a way 

that will get information to the federal agencies. Both federal and state biologists must do habitat inventory.

It may be appropriate for state DOW biologists to do official sage grouse counts. However, using Nevada as an example, sage 

grouse are counted from a helicopter as part of the mule deer census. This is done along the same grid year after year. New 

grounds or satellite grounds are not sought during breeding season or other times of the year when these flights are made; 

there is only so much money, time and personnel. The problem is illustrated by the fact that several years ago, the NDOW 

had to change their traditional deer flight grid in an area due to weather and ended up accidently finding one of the largest lek 

complexes that exists in western Nevada. All BLM and USFS biologists should be charged with or be allowed to conduct sage 

grouse lek and other habitat inventory. Inventory for potential leks / satellites can be done yearlong along with other field

duties if the biologist knows what to look for outside the breeding season. Confirmation can be done the following spring 

during breeding season. Until habitat connectivity and the potential for sage grouse populations to follow source and sink 

population science are known, no sage grouse occurrence, lek or habitat can be ignored in order for the species to survive. 

Federal biologists must learn what sage grouse leks, nesting habitat etc look like in the field. Leks and especially satellites can 

be very small; they don’t necessarily show up on landscape scale GIS maps or even aerial photographs. When a biologist can 

recognize these in the field, they stand out in neon colors. The benefit comes when a biologist is in the field for any reason and 

sees a “neon” area that can be investigated further at another time. Federal biologists must often go to non-wildlife project 

sites and state what wildlife values are present. If the biologist sees a “neon” area that hadn’t shown up on the USGS coarse

filter maps or other official sage grouse map, they can say there could be a sage grouse issue present and ultimately save that 

area.

All Both emc0083GB

125. OTHER

ISSUE: The proposed Conservation Measures fail to address a process for incorporating new information in a timely manner.

The State-wide Breeding Density Map Omits a Population(s) in Western Nevada points to a basic flaw in how new information 

is incorporated into planning. A population of sage grouse is missing from the map. I have 12 years experience working with 

sage grouse habitat in eastern Nevada with another 3 in western Nevada. I recently reviewed and consolidated known sage 

grouse sightings that had been officially recorded in my office by reliable sources. One area of my District had persistent 

sightings recorded right into the present. After plotting the sightings, it was unlikely the birds from the sightings could be 

associated with known leks due to distance. That meant it was possible there were undiscovered leks in a new area. There was 

also brooding, and winter habitat in the general area. Because the PMU’s for Nevada had already been delineated, neither 

All Both emc0083GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-446 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

NDOW nor my agency were anxious to re-open these or create a new one. Without having the new information officially 

acknowledged under this process, I couldn’t really use it to try to manage for sage grouse, nor could I spend too much time 

trying to delineate a lek and other key habitats. Without official acknowledgement, if challenged in a planning process, those 

sage grouse use areas would be deemed not significant and not worth mitigation. As per the Breeding Density Maps to be used 

in this EIS, the birds and habitat I speak of remain unaddressed, and will remain in limbo if the state has to officially acknowledge 

it. This is an unacceptable situation in the area of incorporation of new information and the proposed Conservation Measures 

don’t address this topic. It sets the federal agency up for a lawsuit. A quick and easy process must be written into every LUP 

for incorporating new habitat discoveries, even without state’s blessings. Until habitat connectivity and the potential for sage 

grouse populations to follow source and sink population science are known, no sage grouse occurrence, lek or habitat can be 

ignored in order for the species to survive.

126. Designation of Sage-grouse Habitat

Based on past and present BLM guidance, the types of sage-grouse conservation measures that will apply to a particular area 

may depend in part on whether the area is designated as priority habitat or general habitat. The BLM's planning documents 

indicate that the BLM intends to defer largely to state wildlife management agencies in determining the location and extent of 

such habitat. To date, many efforts to identify sage-grouse habitat have incorporated "broad brush" analyses that do not 

appear to include adequate site-specific field verification. For example, the mere presence of intact sagebrush-dominated 

vegetation alone is not a sufficient indicator of sage-grouse habitat. Moreover, historic range is not an appropriate measure for 

identifying current sage-grouse habitat or distribution. For example, some of the area currently mapped by the Nevada 

Department of Wildlife is occupied by cheatgrass and other non-native invasive annual species, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and 

salt desert shrub vegetation. The cheatgrass and pinyon-juniper areas may have once been sage-grouse habitat before crossing 

ecological thresholds and transitioning or converting to other vegetation, but these areas cuurently do not provide suitable 

habitat and thus, do not warrant habitat designation. They may be more appropriately identified for possible restoration 

efforts if the current ecological state is recoverable to suitable habitat. The salt desert shrub areas never were and never will 

be sage-grouse habitat and should also be excluded from the habitat maps. 

It is essential that any sage-grouse habitat designations be based on clear criteria and sound biological data. Broad, over 

inclusive, geographic designations are inappropriate and may have substantial adverse effects on multiple-use activities on 

federal lands while providing no benefits for the species. It is essential that the BLM closely coordinate with state wildlife 

agencies to ensure that habitat areas have been appropriately designated during and following the EIS process.

Moreover, since the EISs will be covering large geographic areas throughout the western United States, the EISs and any 

land-use plans that incorporate sage-grouse conservation measures should recognize that it is appropriate for project 

proponents to have the opportunity to confirm the habitat designations based on site-specific information at the time specific 

actions or projects are proposed. Thus, where site-specific data documenting sage-grouse occupancy patterns or habitat does 

not meet the criteria for priority or general habitat, adjustments to those habitat boundaries are appropriate and should be 

made without the need for a formal LMP or RMP amendment.

All Both emc0084GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-447

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

127. In some cases, predation may also substantially affect sage-grouse populations, and local predator control measures in certain 

areas, such as known nesting areas, may provide substantial benefits. Focusing on conservation measures that address these 

types of impacts will provide a beneficial option whereby sage-grouse habitat would be protected without substantial adverse 

effects on economically-productive activities. Improving the quality of existing habitat should also be a high priority, as better 

habitat will support more birds and facilitate the inclusion of other land uses across the broader landscape.

All Both emc0084GB

128. The Sage-grouse Report suggests that priority habitat be managed so that "discrete" anthropogenic disturbances cover less 

than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat, regardless of ownership. The Report fails to provide any defensible basis for 

suggesting such a limitation. Any such prescription would have dramatic adverse effects on multiple-use activities in many parts 

of the western United States, and such a wholesale restriction is not necessary or appropriate. A "national threshold" that 

does not consider local conditions is not warranted. 

Moreover, if appropriate disturbance thresholds are developed during the BLM and FS land-use planning processes, they 

should not be used to establish an absolute prohibition on future activities. Instead, the adopted conservation measures should 

allow for use of onsite or offsite mitigation to address any impacts that exceed an appropriately defined threshold. The Report 

also suggests that fire may constitute a "discrete" disturbance that would trigger the 3% threshold.

All Both emc0084GB

129. As noted above, fire has affected broad areas of public lands in many parts of the western United States, and the occurrence 

of fire should not be used to define threshold triggers. For example, depending on the severity or intensity of the wildfire, 

some ecological sites will respond favorably to fire, and will actually improve sage-grouse habitat conditions in the long-term.

All Both emc0084GB

130. The Report suggests several broad-scale prohibitions on various land-use activities, which are over-inclusive and unnecessary. 

For example, the Report suggests that all off-road travel be prohibited in priority habitat (p. 11), and no new rights-of-way be 

allowed in priority habitat, except in limited circumstances such accessing VER (p. 12). Similarly, the Report suggests that all 

existing roads in Wilderness Study Areas and lands with wilderness characteristics be closed and restored. The use of such 

blunt prohibitions, rather than more narrowly tailored management prescriptions should be avoided. Periodic use of most 

such roads would not likely have an adverse effect on sage-grouse populations.

All Both emc0084GB

131. At this time there is no shapefile mapping data available for certain sage-grouse populations, in particular, in the states of 

Colorado, Nevada, and California. And, only partial data is currently available for the state of Montana. This data details the 

preliminary priority and preliminary general habitat for sage-grouse populations in various states, and this information is of 

central importance to the proceeding. In calls today with BLM staff, the unavailability of this data was confirmed, and BLM staff 

advised that the release of this information was being coordinated at the state level and that BLM has been unsuccessful in 

obtaining access to the shapefile maps at issue. BLM staff also said that they thought the data would not be available until the 

beginning of March at the earliest, which is beyond the existing comment period in this proceeding.

All Both emc0086GB

132. I have read the comments on Greater Sage‐grouse habitat conservation submitted by the American Bird Conservancy and 

agree with their proposals. The prairie ecosystem on which the sage grouse depends would be difficult to replace once 

damaged, and many unique native species depend on it. I urge the Bureau of Land Management to coordinate with all the 

government agencies whose policies impact sage‐grouse habitat and also to put protected sage‐grouse habitat off limits to 

agriculture, drilling and other destructive uses. This bird is an umbrella species and protecting it necessitates protecting these 

All Both emc0100GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-448 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

other species as well. I believe it is important to protect the entire ecosystem Thank you for consideration of my comments.

133. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) are unique to the sagebrush steppe ecosystem in the western United 

States and Canada. Land use changes, as well as energy development, invasive plants, and altered fire regimes have resulted in 

long term loss of the sagebrush habitats which are essential to the species’ survival. These factors have resulted in recorded 

range wide declines in greater sage-grouse numbers over the last five decades, increasing the probability of extinction. 

Sage-grouse are a landscape species that inhabit lands owned and managed by multiple jurisdictions. Thus, the preservation of 

large tracts of suitable habitat and the management of these areas to maintain connectivity between populations along with the 

ability to document the effects of collaborative actions on population trends are imperative

All Both emc0099GB

134. In 2010, the greater sage-grouse was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as a candidate species for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 75 FR 13910). However, a litigation settlement requires the FWS to revisit this 

decision by September, 2015. One of the main factors identified by the FWS in the 2010 designation decision was that 

contemporary regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its habitat across its range. 

This factor posed a significant threat to the species. Because the majority of greater sage-grouse habitat is under the 

management purview of BLM and FS, the agencies have proposed to incorporate consistent objectives and conservation 

measures for the protection of greater sage-grouse and its habitat into relevant RMPs and LMPs by September 2014. These

actions are intended to address the FWS concerns and thus avert a potential listing of the species as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. We commend the BLM and FS for taking such proactive actions, but contend that the end state of this process 

should be implementation of conservation measures for the protection of greater sage-grouse and its habitat in relevant RMPs 

and LMPs that ensure the long-term viability of sage-grouse populations. We argue that if the planning actions fully consider 

measures which ensure long-term species viability listing the species under the ESA would not be required.

All Both emc0099GB

135. 1st bullet point: The use of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)

Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly, et al. 2004) is useful, but outdated. TWS 

recommends that FS and BLM review and incorporate information synthesized in Studies in Avian Biology, Volume 38 (Knick 

and Connelly 2011). Currently, the criterion used to develop the preliminary plan omits several key points. We further 

recommend that the BLM and FS rely on peer-reviewed sources to provide the foundation for this effort so as to most 

accurately reflect the current research and management knowledge.

All Both emc0099GB

136. 13th bullet: The Federal Register notice states that BLM and FS efforts will result in... "coordination to determine appropriate 

local and regional management strategies that will enhance or restore greater sage-grouse habitats." This seems to be an 

admission that BLM and FS past management actions have had long-term cumulative effects on sage-grouse and that the only 

mechanism left is habitat restoration. We argue that, given the contemporary wide-spread distribution of the species and 

relatively large areas that still provide key sagebrush habitats, long-term conservation of the species is possible (Connelly et al. 

2011). Because sage-grouse are a landscape species that inhabit lands owned and managed by multiple jurisdictions, the 

preservation of large tracts of suitable habitat and the management of these areas to maintain connectivity between 

populations as well as the ability to document the effects of collaborative actions on population trends are imperative. Thus, 

All Both emc0099GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-449

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

it may be more economically feasible to protect the best habitats, than try to recreate them later.

137. The preliminary issues being considered to protect sage grouse include habitat management, energy production, hardrock and 

industrial minerals, rights-of-way, renewable energy, wildfires, invasive weeds, grazing, off-highway vehicles and recreation. 

Many are the usual suspects as charged in the anti-logging, anti-development campaign to protect the spotted owl.

All Both emc0087GB

138. What part have the central planning agencies played in the decline of sheep ranching? Since sage grouse must consume 

soft-tissue foods, they used to thrive on sheep droppings. Fewer sage grouse, so apparently the central planners have to 

restrict mining. Ravens, perhaps the primary predator of sage grouse, are now on the protected species list. The surging raven 

population is further decimating sage grouse. An evident solution is restrictions on cattle ranching. With the subsequent fuel 

load buildup, fire years scorching hundreds of thousands of acres are now common. Sage grouse are lost in those infernos. 

So... restrict off-highway travel and recreation.

All Both emc0087GB

139. On reviewing the Form, the grouse population count data are very instructive. The count, in seven management zones across 

eleven states, incorporates data from 2002 through 2008. The Form notes new counts were conducted in 2010, but does not 

report those numbers. Trends are discussed for two pages, with no clear and hard summaries. Preliminary review of many of 

the referenced articles indicates they are local and do not extend to range-wide conclusions. The lack of standard data 

impedes everyone’s ability to diligently analyze both the data and the conclusions. If the tabulated numbers are to be accepted, 

approximately 535,000 sage grouse exist across the eleven states. Within the California/Nevada zone, the 2004 count is listed 

as 88,000.

All Both emc0087GB

140. It is not clear how or if the BLM land use planning process will review and reconsider the identified priority and general 

sage-grouse habitats. It is our understanding that these were identified at the state level and it is not clear if the data used were 

reviewed by the BLM field offices and field-checked. As part of the planning process, the BLM should, at a minimum, conduct 

field work to verify the mapping and refine it as necessary. Since the BLM is proposing to delay ROW actions and/or 

prohibiting activities within priority areas, it is critical that these are accurately identified.

All Both emc0090GB

141. Consider the circa May 14, 2011 (or later-dated) 5.3-mile 100% Breeding Bird Density (BBD) radius around all leks as a start, 

with intact sagebrush habitat buffered by Category 2 and other designations (see next bullet). Exceptions might be where 

radius takes in active mine areas. However, grouse use has been documented on post-active Dee Gold Mine reclamation in 

the past, as an example, but area is getting busy again. (Buckhorn Mine relamation?) I am starting to see some merit in the BBD 

as long as it is tempered with linkage to outlying critical summer/late brood-rearing and fall/winter habitat (Ken Gray 

documents 38 miles between summer and winter habitat through telemetry on Tuscarora PMU.) - Anything in a given 

previously-burned native/seeded grassland-dominated area within the 5.3-mile BBD radius shows the importance of trying 

additional ways to get sagebrush and other shrubs (bitterbrush) back on site in the future on a priority basis, as needed.

All Both emc0101GB

142. I am writing to you to express my concern about resources utilization and the effects on Greater Sage‐grouse. With their 

habitat shrinking, and what remains under increasing threats, it is very important to minimize impacts to this species. I 

understand that you are developing a conservation plan for Greater Sage‐grouse. I urge you to do this in a very conservative 

manner with protection of the species as the primary goal.

All Both emc0102GB

143. Protecting habitat should also include reserves where the primary purpose is protecting habitat and helping the species remain All Both emc0102GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-450 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

stable or even increase in numbers. Too often protection of Sage‐grouse is a lower priority than other uses and so we need 

places where the birds are the number one concern.

144. Key to the development of alternatives and mitigation measures is the identification of various types of habitat areas and their 

condition. It should be clearly noted where more data needs to be collected and build alternatives around current and future 

potential occurrences of outdated information.

All Both emc0103GB

145. Conservation Measures should be specific. There has been much work performed on measures specific to analysis and 

enhancement of habitat quantity and quality. Conservation measures need to focus on these types of measures instead of 

being solely stipulation focused. These types of conservation programs can then be analyzed as alternatives (i.e. restoration of 

targeted critical habitat areas affected by fire, etc.). The Nevada Department of Wildlife has provided input to conservation 

plans that deal with quantity and quality of sage grouse habitat. These plans should be incorporated into the conservation 

measures of this EIS and associated RMPs.

All Both emc0103GB

146. Alternatives could include programs such as incorporating no net habitat loss. A current survey of habitat in the proposed 

project area would provide relevant data for habitat classification according to established standards. The proposed action 

would be required to demonstrate avoidance whenever possible and mitigate any loss through an established or approved 

restoration program.

All Both emc0103GB

147. A stated objective of the Report is to “Conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse habitat and connectivity” and to “Restore 

historical habitat functionality ...”. Restoration and historical habitat functionality must be quantifiable to levels documented in 

relevant data. Furthermore, data utilized to designate “historical” greater sage-grouse distribution should be peer reviewed 

for relevance and adequacy

All Both emc0103GB

148. The EIS must clearly define, in all alternatives, habitat types, boundaries and rationale for proposed setbacks and/or buffer

areas. The EIS should also identify the methodology for determining bird density, the confidence and soundness of that data 

and its reproducibility.

All Both emc0310GB

149. The EIS and its alternatives must stress national consistency with the various types of conservation measures, while providing 

sufficient recognition of habitat conditions and sage grouse populations by sub region. This will insure the flexibility required 

to consider local conditions during implementation.

All Both emc0310GB

150. The EIS must define and provide the scientific basis and management implications for the goal to "manage or restore priority 

areas so that at least 70% of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage grouse needs".

All Both emc0310GB

151. For perhaps for the first time, agency-generated sage grouse occurrence and habitat maps will be widely available to the public. 

This may reduce overall bird numbers due to more concentrated hunting in a key area. The EIS and its alternatives should 

analyze impacts to the species as a result of this potential for concentrated pressures from hunting.

All Both emc0310GB

152. For perhaps for the first time, agency-generated sage grouse occurrence and habitat maps will be widely available to the public. 

This may reduce overall bird numbers due to more concentrated hunting in a key area. The EIS and its alternatives should 

analyze impacts to the species as a result of this potential for concentrated pressures from hunting

All Both emc0310GB

153. Sage grouse needs some forage planted such as alfalfa and grass to prosper. All Both emc0403GB

154. It has been our experience and our parents and their parents that have lived in this area have always maintained that Sage All Both emc0389GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-451

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Grouse populations fluctuated though out the past.

155. Comments on “A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures” produced by the Sage-Grouse National 

Technical Team

One of the objectives of the NTT report is to manage priority sage-grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership. Additionally, in priority habitats 

where the 3% disturbance threshold is already exceeded, to prohibit further anthropogenic disturbances until enough habitat 

has been restored to maintain the area under this threshold. This is a problem because it has the potential to prohibit 

development in vast tracks of public lands for years, if not decades, regardless of the status of the species, its habitat, or the 

specific impacts or mitigations from any such proposed development.

All Both emc0108GB

156. The EIS should take a good hard look at the best available scientific data on habitat fragmentation in regard to sage-grouse 

populations. Protecting the species in constrained and isolated communities may be insufficient in the long term. Do certain 

types of fragmentation have far greater impact than others; for instance, are transmission line corridors more harmful than 

roadways or are mining operations more harmful than fossil fuel or geothermal drilling operations?

All Both emc0121GB

157. The EIS should examine the "checkerboard" pattern of land ownership associated with the railroad ROW's that were granted 

in the 1800's. Does this pattern of land usage have a negative impact on sage-grouse populations or the ability to implement 

effective methods to protect them?

All Both emc0121GB

158. Methodology of monitoring – should be flexible enough to allow local input and modifications on the adaptivity of the species All Both emc0126GB

159. We strongly support off-site mitigation for projects that impact sage-grouse habitat All Both emc0126GB

160. The historic numbers (from the 30s‐50s) used for projected sage grouse populations are distorted and impossible to achieve 

today.

- Those numbers came from a time when sage grouse predators were almost nonexistent due to the fact that the sheep and 

cattle producers were very proactive in predator control, using methods that aren't available or even legal today.

- Prior to the onslaught of development, more habitat was available in the past. With so much traditional sage grouse habitat 

swallowed up with urban sprawl and essential farming operations there just aren’t the acres of habitat available to sustain 

those historic numbers.

All Both emc0127GB

161. n semi-arid rangeland regions vast extremes in precipitation often occur, especially during the major growing season for forbs, 

which is late March to early July. This variation can be as high as 300% between seasons, years, and groups of years. The 

resulting variation in production of plant species, especially annual and perennial forbs, can cause extreme variability of 

Greater Sage Grouse (GSG) reproduction levels.

All Both emc0388GB

162. When I compare the consistent and desirable precipitation and abundant forb vegetation during the growing season on GSG 

habitat in Montana and Wyoming to the Great Basin, it makes one wonder if the Great Basin area plant ecology may be on the 

cutting edge of desirable habitat for the GSG.

All Both emc0388GB

163. the ESA does not provide for the cost of a mitigation strategy to preclude its implementatIon, funding to implement strategies 

is none the less naturally limited. Our continued ability to serve a broad spectrum of multiple-use industries is crucial to 

All Both emc0396GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-452 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

maintaining their ability to provide beneficial habitat management and their financial viability to implement appropriate 

mitigation measures.

164. Our ratepayers grow weary of bearing the vast majority of the cost of salmon and steelhead mitigation while sportsmen and 

commercial fishing contribute very little to species recovery. This same problem is very evident in the sage grouse debate as

many times utilities, ranchers and other commercial interests are asked to contribute most of the funding for mitigation and 

habitat improvement while the sportsman that hunt these species are not contributing a commensurate amount. \Vhile we 

understand the right of the sportsman and the concept of multiple use, it seems very odd that hunting these birds, even though 

it is considered low impact. surely cannot help in the effort to improve populations of the sage grouse in these areas

All Both emc0396GB

165. Areas which provide habitat for nesting and brooding should be defined in a similar fashion All Both emc0396GB

166. Please do what you can to preserve, protect and restore habitat for the Sage-grouse All Both emc0183GB

167. Regarding recreation, the plan amendments should direct local land managers to cooperate and coordinate with local 

governments and affected stakeholders to establish achievable goals for protection of the Grouse (lek /nest disturbance, 

wintering areas and sage habitat degradation) and to mitigate potential affects upon recreation through closure of existing, 

inventoried and managed routes.

All Both emc0199GB

168. The analysis should also disclose impacts of the hunting of the Grouse, which is still allowed in at least 8 of the 11 states where 

it is found. Importantly, Sage Grouse conservation efforts such as seasonal restrictions and bag limits have been quite 

successful in maintaining healthy populations.

All Both emc0199GB

169. There are many reasons for their decline and the reasons vary from predator consumption, weather cycles, chemicals etc. All Both emc0311GB

170. Greater sage-grouse are unique to the sagebrush steppe ecosystem in the western United States and Canada,and are a 

landscape species that inhabit lands owned and managed by multiple jurisdictions. Thus, the preservation oflarge tracts of 

suitable habitat and the management of these areas to maintain connectivity between populations along with the ability to 

document the effects of collaborative actions on population trends are imperative.

All Both emc0398GB

171. The BLM and USFS will utilize the Western Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly, et al. 2004), and any other appropriate resources, to identify greater 

sage-grouse habitat requirements and best management practices. We suggest BLM and the USFS consider the findings 

published by Utah Wildlife in Need in Contemporary Knowledge and Research Needs Regarding the Potential Effects of Tall 

Structures on Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus and C. minimus) UWIN 2010). UWIN learned during its study "that 

there were no peer-reviewed, experimental studies designed specifically to evaluate the landscape effects oftall structures on 

sage-grouse" [emphasis in original]. This is significant in that BLM and the USFS are undertaking a process to establish greater 

sage-grouse and sagebrush management strategies in the absence of scientific knowledge on the effects of tall structures on 

greater sage-grouse.

All Both emc0399GB

172. Avian and mammalian predation and hunting both have the potential to reduce population-level survival of greater 

sage-grouse. PCW's greater sage-grouse study evaluates cause-specific mortality when possible. Mortality for most seasons 

and for most grouse age cohorts is predominantly attributed to avian and mammalian predators. During fall hunting seasons, 

in areas of PCW's study site open to hunting, up to 30-40% of tagged birds are killed by hunters. These hunting mortalities 

All Both emc0399GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-453

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

include all ages and sexes of grouse.

173. Tall Structures. As previously stated, PCW is unaware of any literature supporting measured avoidance of tall structures by 

greater sage-grouse. Literature regarding this issue is lacking and where it exists is contradictory. BLM should strike tall 

structures as an anthropogenic disturbance until the scientific evidence resolves this issue. Utah Wildlife in Need provided a 

robust summary of what is known regarding the response of greater sage-grouse to tall structures. The UWIN report should 

be reviewed prior to making statements regarding the impacts of tall structures.

All BLM emc0399GB

174. Raptors Perching on Power Lines. The NTT Report claims that lek abandonment may increase if leks are repeatedly disturbed 

by raptors perching on power lines near leks (Ellis 1984). Ellis (1984) does not make any reference to raptors perching on 

power lines near leks, but rather a single observation of a golden eagle that was perched on the ground and flew adjacent to 

the lek and landed on a pump jack, causing some greater sage-grouse to flush and others to crouch. Greater sage-grouse 

continued to display within 30 minutes of the eagle perching. Ellis (1984), as are a number of other studies, is often 

misreported or misinterpreted.

All Both emc0399GB

175. PCW disagrees that all management actions have negative effects. For instance, we have found in our studies that certain 

sagebrush treatments, such as Spike® treatments or mechanical thinning, may have beneficial effects to greater sage-grouse. 

Others have also observed beneficial effects from management actions. PCW agrees that in order to monitor effects to 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat, both beneficial and adverse, that BLM should establish standardize monitoring protocols, 

including standardized sampling protocols for collecting habitat measurements at the project level. Standardized sampling 

protocols will allow assessment of impacts at the landscape level across projects and across Field Offices

All Both emc0399GB

176. History has shown that species populations continually rise and fall, due to various factors, including weather, predators or 

disease.

All Both emc0372GB

177. Future strategies should recognize the statement from the Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage‐grouse and Sagebrush 

Habitats (Connelly, et al, p. 13‐8) that "Sagebrush habitats cannot return to some pre‐settlement condition because many of 

the parts are no longer present or the sagebrush ecosystem has gone past a threshold from which recovery is not possible." 

Do not lay out strategies that are impossible to accomplish. Recognize the present conditions of the ecosystem, and work 

from that base, not pre‐settlement conditions.

All Both emc0386GB

178. Recognize that "we lack the information needed to better understand the underlying processes of sagebrush ecosystems at 

multiple scales (Connelly, et al p. 13‐11) Do not develop strategies with an underlying assumption that ecosystem processes 

are understood.

All Both emc0386GB

179. While we acknowledge there are fewer sage-grouse today we also believe there are several factors involved in their decrease. All Both emc390GB

180. I support the provision mandating that any "anthropogenic disturbances" cover less than 3% of the total sage grouse habitat. All Both emc0184GB

181. The past dry years have allowed sagebrush to squeeze into the tiny wet meadows where the hens take their young chicks to 

forage. These small wet meadows need some help to get the sage out..

All Both emc0406GB

182. A landscape approach that uses science-based landscape ecological assessments and objectives to drive land use decisions. 

This includes determination of areas of high ecological value, e.g. sage grouse core areas, where incompatible uses should be 

All Both emc0407GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-454 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

avoided, areas where certain uses are appropriate if impacts can be minimized, and identification of those areas that that could 

provide the best opportunities for mitigation investments. Such assessments must accurately measure landscape disturbance 

and must measure it in a cumulative fashion, including estimated future impacts of activities being considered. A robust 

assessment of cumulative impacts is essential;

183. We recommend that in the process of revising specific RMPs and LMPs to incorporate sage-grouse concerns, that strong 

consideration be given towards using administrative designation to set aside the highest priority areas for sage-grouse, 

including breeding, brood-rearing, migration, and wintering areas .)

All Both emc0407GB

184. There is still an open hunt in Idaho. They claim that hunters don't kill enough birds to be significant. ( around 7000)the last I 

heard. I don't know what they think is significant but hunting practices have changed as well. I see hunters riding double on 

ATV's and riding in jeeps on all four corners. When a group of birds gets up they kill a lot of them with their 10 or 12 gage mag 

with a full choke. Then they are mobile enough to watch where they land. When they finish they have killed the entire brood. 

That may be more damaging than the number they kill.

All Both emc0377GB

185. Unless there is very specific information about affected sage-grouse populations and their habitat, the EIS will likely have 

information that is broad and too general to pinpoint habitat status and need to target measures to help ensure "healthy" 

populations. I think that the USFWS would want to see something specific per affected area on a priority basis. Background 

info as appendix items as selected or referenced, for example, Federal Register and latest BLM Strategy, latest Ims. Don't need 

to continually re-address life history, etc. Otherwise PMU Summary at a minimum as BLM has massive volumes of guidelines, 

plans, strategies, assessments, etc. dating back to, at least, Year 2000.

All Both emc0101GB

186. In our area, sage grouse numbers peaked in the 1950-60's and have since fluctuated greatly. For history to repeat itself, 

meaning if we want the same number of birds as in the past, then we need to, if possible, simulate historic conditions. 

Sage-grouse numbers peaked because of the perfect sage-grouse storm: 1. due to grazing pressure rangeland health was 

generally poor, but with the reduction in AUM numbers rangeland health was in an upward trend, 2. Predators were actively 

controlled, 3. Landscape scale range rehabilitation projects were conducted, and 4. water was more abundant. Since the 

1940-60's, livestock AUMs on BLM property has steadily declined, predators have increased, pinion/juniper encroachment and 

woody species have increased, small springs and streams have decreased from the increased water use by woody species, and 

the BLM has reduced the number of large landscape treatments

All Both emc0165GB

187. In conclusion, sage grouse populations will be sus.tainable if the BLM addresses pinion/juniper encroachment, decadent sage 

brush stands and water development

All Both emc0165GB

188. There are two main goals that need to be addressed: reduced sage grouse mortality, and increased habitat. All Both emc0172GB

189. There are three main causes of premature sage grouse death: predators, people and climate change. All Both emc0172GB

190. People have a negative impact on sage grouse. More than once I have nearly killed sage grouse driving. On roads that can be 

traveled at speeds greater than 25 MPH, it is very important to have good ditches to remove the water that attracts grouse.

All Both emc0172GB

191. I think all lek information should be removed from public record just like with caves. We don't want the public to "love" the 

birds to death.

All Both emc0172GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-455

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

192. Increasing quality habitat is important for sage grouse. I mainly see grouse around dirt tanks and water troughs. I think it would 

be ideal to provide sage grouse water along rancher's water lines. A location could be picked based on the amount of available 

cover, and distance from high speed roads. Thought would have to be given to season of use so that the lines don't freeze up.

If there was an OHV system nearby funding might be able to come from them to help mitigate their disturbances. Funding 

would be needed for pipe extension and to defray electricity costs to pump water.

All Both emc0172GB

193. Much consideration needs to be given to livestock grazing systems. Grazing pastures the same time every year can change the 

shrub to grass component percentages. Grazing in the late fall through winter generally increases the grass component, and 

decreases the sage and other brushes. Grazing in the spring and early summer decreases the grass and increases the shrubs. 

Sage grouse need the sage brush, but they also need the grass and forbs. If a prescription is given to never graze a given pasture 

in the spring for sage grouse strutting, nesting and rearing activity, that pasture will decrease in sage brush and increase in 

grass. A better system may be to allow grazing in the spring only once every four to five years.

All Both emc0172GB

194. Predation also is not ranked as high on the "threats" graph but raven predation could be a major factor in grouse chick survival 

in this area.

All Both emc0173GB

195. As noted, sagebrush densities appear to be lower in here as compared to many areas in Utah and Wyoming. A lower density 

of good brush cover combined with more dispersed succulent food and water sources may mean that sage grouse broods 

travel further and are more exposed to predation than in better grouse habitats.

All Both emc0173GB

196. Fencing: Benefits to grouse broods could be provided by fencing of key habitats, such as taller, denser sagebrush stands, 

especially in water overflow areas, to protect the areas from cattle use. This could be seasonal technique that would have to

be coordinated with the overall rest-rotation or other grazing system but it could be done. Fences could be buck and pole or 

split rail if they are in key areas near leks.

All Both emc0173GB

197. Toxic pesticides specifically furadan was used for yeas. The EPA banned furadan in 1991. The toxicity is horrendous, it not only 

kills pests-insects, but anything that eats a pest that has eaten furadan dies. It is even highly toxic to verebrae. FMC is one of 

the most diversified chemical companies and is/was the maker of furadan to control grasshoppers. As of Janurary 1, 2010, 

furadan can no longer be used on any crops nor can it be sold legally. What affect over the years has this product had not only 

on sage grouse, but many other animals on the endangered species list?? There are so many factors involved in the sage grouse

reclamation and many have not been addressed fully.

All Both cfc0003RM

198. I expect part of the scoping process will include a consideration of the amount of disturbance to habitat and breeding by 

various human activities.

All Both emc0002RM

199. Braun "estimates a viable population of approximately 2,000 birds needs around 400 square miles of unbroken habitat." All Both emc0012RM

200. relevant and lIsefulliteralurc review (Tord l et al. 2002) identifies studies and research where empirical data has and has not 

been collected. which can be helpful in considering known facts about sage grollse and their habitats. Torell. LA .. J. A. Tanaka. 

N Rimbey. T. Darden. L. JI(m Tassell. and A. ,·/r"l}. 2002. Ranch level impacts of clwn~illg grcdng policies 011 BLMland /0 

pro/ecl/Iie Gre(uer SageGrouse: evidel1ceJrom Idaho. Nevada, and Oregon. PACWPL Policy Paper

All Both emc0136GB

201. The scale at which these maps were created is very broad, and to use these on project level planning allows the opportunity 

for quality habitat to be impacted negatively. We would strongly suggest the BLM visit and thoroughly investigate any 

All Both emc0059RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-456 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

proposed project locations, prior to any projects or decisions, to verify the quality of habitat.

202. Sage grouse lek locations, habitat quality, as well as how the birds move through these habitats changes through time, 

therefore, the EIS needs to account for these changes and allow for flexibility in the maps as well as the management strategies.

All Both emc0064RM

203. The scale at which these maps were created is very broad, and to use these on project level planning allows the opportunity 

for quality habitat to be impacted negatively. I would strongly suggest the BLM visit and thoroughly investigate any proposed 

project locations, prior to any projects or decisions, to verify the quality of habitat.

All Both emc0064RM

204. I strongly urge the reclassification of isolated areas of "priority general habitat" that lie completely within priority habitat areas 

to include them within the surrounding priority habitat. The NTT document makes it a priority to "conserve, enhance or 

restore sagegrouse habitat and connectivity", it discusses how roads within the sage-grouse range lead to the fragmentation of 

habitat, and how mineral development and sage brush treatments can also lead to the fragmentation of habitat. It’s clear that

fragmentation of habitat is a major issue and I believe modifying the map to reflect this would not only protect the integrity of 

the continuous uninterrupted priority habitat but also the corridors that connect habitats.

All Both emc0064RM

205. The 3% disturbance should be calculated within the priority habitat for a given lek and not the priority habitat as it is connected 

to other leks. Calculating the 3% this way will ensure that only disturbances within a 4 mile proximity will be included and not 

disturbances beyond that range.

All Both emc0064RM

206. I don’t believe off-site mitigation should be an option for allowing additional impacts to habitats that already meet or exceed 

the 3% threshold. Sage-grouse exhibit a high level of sight fidelity. To force the grouse to move to different habitats will lead 

to reduced populations.

All Both emc0064RM

207. I am submitting this comment to discourage any action to list the sage grouse on the species of concern or endangered by any 

agency or group. The sage grouse has had cycles of ups and downs over the history of record keeping for the sage grouse.

Any one can make statistics show what their agenda wants and I would hope that we keep the bird off any list. Any action 

would impact private landowners and rural and local governments.

All Both emc0109RM

208. No amount of habitat cover will protect them from the West Nile virus. All Both emc0139GB

209. West Nile Virus (WNV). Although there is little the BLM and Forest Service can do to control WNV, it is important to discuss 

its impacts on sage grouse, monitor for the disease in populations, and continue to research methods of control. Hopefully, 

something will become available that allows for eradication of this disease.

All Both emc0142GB

210. Each leck of birds should be studied separatly, and not combined with a western region, on state study. Making blanket 

decisions based on large areas of sage grouse activities, will not create management decisions, necessary to pinepoint the real 

reason, populations are changing each year

All Both emc0143GB

211. The report does not indicate that populations outside of the developed areas were assessed to account for the possible effects 

of such factors on studied sage grouse populations

All Both emc0168GB

212. No real science is being used to study the bird. For instance, it has been found that sage hens eat Mormon crickets. If we use 

poison on the Mormon crickets, and the hens eat the crickets, are we threatening an already diminishing bird, polluting the 

earth with more chemicals, and destroying a natural predator?

All Both emc0170GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-457

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

213. Reliable population estimates are needed for managers to make appropriate decisions and understand the effects of actions on 

a particular site. In many areas, these data are lacking for specific local populations. In addition, scientific and professional

literature pertaining to sage- ‐grouse contains some scientific uncertainties (Connelly et al. 2000c, Schroeder et al.1999). 

There is a lack of understanding of how sage-­‐grouse use some important components of their habitats at the landscape level 

(Wambolt et al. 2002; PACWPL Policy Paper SG-02-02).

All Both emc0179GB

214. Forbs are also a critical source of food for young chicks. During spring, important forb species include common dandelion 

(Taraxacum officinale), yellow salsify (Tragpopogon dubius), prairie pepperweed (Lepidium desiflorum), clover (Trifolium 

spp.), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), yarrow (Achillea spp.), sweet clover (Melilotus spp.), vetch (Vicia 

spp.), milk vetch (Astragulus spp.), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) (Schroeder et al. 1999).

All Both emc0179GB

215. Dwindling sage grouse numbers indicate the need for the highest level of protection. They are among a number of organisms 

that have declined due to poor land management and wildlife protection. A number of things need to be done, such as, 

identifying priority habitat that includes breeding, brooding, and winter habitat necessary to support and expand the sage 

grouse population, reducing livestock grazing and vegetative treatments that reduce the native species they need and keeping 

their habitat free of energy production and generation.

All Both emc0203GB

216. We can not afford to harm sage grouse populations anymore, we must support the preservation of all of thier breeding and 

living areas. Gas and Oil will come and go. One day all energy will be sustainable and no fossile fuel energy will be used. But will 

we have the sage grouse and other wildlife? Please see the long term, fossile fuel is relatively temporary and the losses we 

sustain from it in wildlife and water supply pollution are permanent. Do not intrude on sage grouse living and breeding areas.

All Both emc0206GB

217. Sage grouse numbers were higher and stronger when cattle numbers were high, wide spread predator control and selective 

burning was at its highest. With cutting back on grazing, no control burns and less predator control the sage grouse numbers 

are going down.

All Both emc0207GB

218. The West Nile Virus epidemic of a few years ago had a devastating effect on the sage grouse population. There were many sick 

and dying or dead birds. Never before this time or since have I been able to drive up alongside and stop by a sage grouse 

standing on the highway and has it not flown. Unfortunately, this obviously sick bird was later hit by a car. The Corvidae family 

of birds is a known carrier of West Nile Virus.

All Both emc0208GB

219. I am in complete objection to the listing of the sage grouse on the endangered species list. First of all the birds populations far 

exceeds the criteria to be listed by the hundreds of thousands in Nevada alone. Second is the direct impact that it will have on 

the economy of the western United States. The proposed plans that the government has to protect the birds will have a direct 

opposite affect of which they are trying to achieve and will totally eliminate the species within a ten year period, cost the tax 

payers billions of dollars in fire fighting expenses and reconstructing of the land which will make the environment worse and

worse as far as pollution and land destruction.

All Both emc0210GB

220. To better understand the Sage Grouse issue, the Lassen MC would like the environmental documentto address the following:

• What has been the decline of the Sage Grouse numbers at 5, 10 and 25 years ago? • What have been the Sage Grouse takes 

from hunting activities at 5, 10 and 25 years ago?

• If there has been a reduction of Sage Grouse habitat, how has the habitat declined at 5, 10 and 25 years? 

• Are there other impacts to Sage Grouse causing the decline in numbers such as disease, increase in natural predators, fire or 

All Both emc0214GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-458 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the lack of fire on the landscape?

221. We have approximately 250 miles of fence on our ranch and we ride or drive each mile at least 1-2 times a year and some 

areas get patrolled many times a year. In almost 50 years of checking fences I don't recall ever finding an injured or dead 

sage-grouse by a fence. I find it hard to believe that fences are a major threat to sage-grouse.

All Both emc0215GB

222. Reliable population estimates are needed for managers to make appropriate decisions and understand the effects of actions on 

a particular site. In many areas, these data are lacking for specific local populations. In addition, scientific and professional 

literature pertaining to sage- ‐grouse contains some scientific uncertainties (Connelly et al. 2000c, Schroeder et al.1999). 

There is a lack of understanding of how sage-­‐grouse use some important components of their habitats at the landscape level 

(Wambolt et al. 2002; PACWPL Policy Paper SG-02-02).

All Both emc0159GB

223. Reliable population estimates are needed for managers to make appropriate decisions and understand the effects of actions on 

a particular site. In many areas, these data are lacking for specific local populations. In addition, scientific and professional 

literature pertaining to sage- ‐grouse contains some scientific uncertainties (Connelly et al. 2000c, Schroeder et al.1999). 

There is a lack of understanding of how sage-­‐grouse use some important components of their habitats at the landscape level 

(Wambolt et al. 2002; PACWPL Policy Paper SG-02-02).

All Both emc0222GB

224. Reliable population estimates are needed for managers to make appropriate decisions and understand the effects of actions on 

a particular site. In many areas, these data are lacking for specific local populations. In addition, scientific and professional 

literature pertaining to sage- ‐grouse contains some scientific uncertainties (Connelly et al. 2000c, Schroeder et al.1999). 

There is a lack of understanding of how sage-­‐grouse use some important components of their habitats at the landscape level 

(Wambolt et al. 2002; PACWPL Policy Paper SG-02-02).

All Both emc0209GB

225. Finally, any sage grouse conservation plan is incomplete without objective targets of both sage grouse population and habitat

acres.

All Both emc0216GB

226. Also, many of the older local ranchers remember when there were no significant numbers of sage grouse. It wasn't until the 

ranchers put in meadows and they began to flourish.

All Both emc0238GB

227. We understand the desire of these agencies to protect and enhance the sagebrush habitat as a means to protect the sage 

grouse. We cannot help but point out the irony that in eight states it is legal to hunt and kill sage-grouse. Perhaps before 

deciding to lock up millions of acres of federal lands in an effort to save the sage-grouse, a temporary moratorium on the killing 

of the sage-grouse might be a more appropriate step. When the American eagle was on the endangered species list, stiff 

federal fines were levied against anyone convicted of killing an American eagle. Until the sage-grouse population has been 

revived, maybe it should be afforded similar protection.

All Both emc0324GB

228. The BLM should also utilize existing data developed in Wyoming regarding sage-grouse populations and energy development. 

Four studies were prepared by Hayden-Wing Associates and Taylor Environmental Consulting LLC and were conducted using 

the most current publicly available data on lek attendance in developed oil and gas fields maintained by Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department and Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. These studies, identified below, have been subjected 

to formal peer review by highly respected wildlife journals; and, we urge they be utilized as an integral part of the agency's 

analysis processes.

All Both emc0166GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-459

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. Human Impacts And Multilevel Processes In Greater Sage-Grouse Population Dynamics - Harju, Dzialak, Taylor, Clark, 

Hayden-Wing, and Winstead.

2. Factors Affecting Lek Occupancy Dynamics In Greater Sage-Grouse- Clark, Taylor, Dzialak, Hayden-Wing, Harju, Sutter, 

and Winstead.

3. Thresholds Of Energy Development And Greater Sage-Grouse Populations - Harju, Taylor, Dzialak, Clark, Hayden-Wing, 

and Winstead.

4. Identifying And Prioritizing Greater Sag-Grouse Nesting And Brood Rearing Habitat For Conservation In Human-Modified 

Landscapes - Dzialak, Olsen, Harju, Webb, Mudd, Winstead, and Hayden-Wing.

Contrary to the conclusions reached in other studies, findings contained in these studies clearly demonstrate that energy 

development and viable sage-grouse populations can successfully co-exist when reasonable mitigation measures are utilized 

during exploration, development and producing activities.

229. Given the extent of planning, studies, and analysis that has been prepared in Wyoming regarding the greater sage-grouse, the 

BLM should be sure to utilize the existing data to the greatest extent possible. This is particularly important because the 

sage-grouse conservation measures developed by the State of Wyoming have received extensive support from both the 

Secretary of the Interior and United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

All Both emc0166GB

230. BRC concludes the Grouse has been intensively studied for the last 60 years and there are a number of factors that have been 

identified as major contributors to the decline of the species. These include but are not limited to:

· Habitat destruction/modification thru urbanization/fragmentation

· Introduction of invasive plant species

· Intrusion of Juniper ecotype

· Wildfire and fire management including prescribed burns

· Predation

· Fragmentation from fences, power-lines, roads and other infrastructure

· Hard and liquid mineral leases and development

· Grazing

· Wild horse/burro management

· Disease (including West Nile Virus (WNV))

All Both emc0227GB

231. The minimum effective population for greater sage-grouse to guard against the risk of extinction was determined by the FWS 

to be 5,000 birds (12-Month Findings, pgs. 13959 and 13985). The current estimated population is between 350,000 and 

535,000 birds (12- Month Findings, pg. 13921), which is 70 to 107 times greater than the minimum effective population. Given 

the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% per year (12-Month Findings, pg 13922), it would take 300 

to 330 years for the current greater sage-grouse population to dwindle to the minimum effective population of 5,000. 

Speculating about what might occur three centuries later reaches well beyond the foreseeable future. The greater sage-grouse 

is not faced with imminent extinction or extinction in the foreseeable future, so is not legally qualified to be listed as either 

“endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA.

All Both emc0256GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-460 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

232. There is ample greater sage-grouse habitat within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and 

National Conservation Areas to support the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds. These nationally designated areas 

are already managed under special regulatory mechanisms that in many instances mirror the proposed mechanisms that 

current sage-grouse planning strategies recommend for conservation of the species and its habitat.

All Both emc0256GB

233. The EIS must establish population benchmarks for each land use plan that would prevent ESA listing. All Both emc0242GB

234. We request that the land use plan amendments be single-purpose; limited solely to those associated with sage grouse habitat 

conservation.

All Both emc0242GB

235. We encourage the BLM to look not only at habitat availability) but also habitat suitability given the energy and mineral potential 

and other multiple use potential of preliminary priority sage grouse habitat areas. Mineral Potential and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development studies should be used to make those habitat mapping determinations.

All Both emc0242GB

236. The Sage-grouse National Technical Team's report "A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" 

contains several unrealistic findings. For example, on Page 6 and 7, the report states that "Management priorities will need to 

be shifted and balanced to maximize benefits to sage-grouse habitats and populations in priority habitats." This statement 

makes conservation of sage grouse the highest priority land use in priority habitats at the expense of all other land uses. If that 

is the case, great care will need to be taken in the designation of priority habitat. Cooperating agencies and local sage grouse 

working groups must have an opportunity to review and comment on such habitat designations and the BLM must consider 

local and state land use plans and policies before establishing priority habitat. Habitat areas should not be designated by 

outsiders with a "broad brush," but should be based on local knowledge and limited to lands actually being used by sage grouse. 

Lands documented as having been used only once in the past ten years should not be considered priority habitat. We look 

forward to an opportunity to review the proposed habitat mapping.

All Both emc0242GB

237. The BLM should provide for management flexibility in order to reduce the need to prepare additional land use plan 

amendments in the future and allow for land managers to use common sense given site specific conditions. RMP amendments 

must not become so prescriptive that incorporation of new science and data into management of sagebrush habitats would be 

restricted absent new planning efforts.

All Both emc0242GB

238. Among the 15 issues covered in the joint letter, we particularly look forward to the opportunity to work with both the BLM 

and FS to identify important habitats and areas for special designations. Our organization has skills and expertise on 

sage-grouse, their habitats, and the best landscapes that deserve protection to benefit the species.

All Both emc0243GB

239. The mere presence of sagebrush habitat alone is not sufficient to be classified as sage grouse habitat. All Both emc0400GB

240. Furthermore BLM must exercise prudence in map development ensure that areas depicted as existing Sage-Grouse habitat 

reflect existing conditions and are not expanded to include "Historic" range.

All Both emc0400GB

241. Unusually severe predation of Sage Grouse should not be underestimated. Many years of land management decisions involving 

promotion of rapt or friendly power lines and structures has not occurred without some undesirable affects. These practices 

for new and previously installed structures should be reviewed and re-evaluated in potential Sage Grouse locations. In addition 

control programs to discourage corvid nesting and persistence should be considered in specific Sage Grouse areas exhibiting 

excessive numbers of these birds.

All Both emc0400GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-461

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

242. have not seen any documentation demonstrating that sage grouse populations are still on the decline in Nevada. At a recent 

BLM oil and gas lease sale, there were several representatives from the BLM that were “knowledgeable” of the Sage Grouse 

issue and none of them could comment on this. I think that before leases are deferred or withdrawn from any oil and gas lease 

sale there should be more reason than the area might have the potential to support a specific species that might become 

threatened or endangered.

All Both emc0245GB

243. In addition, it appears that the definition of species has been seriously compromised in that the “Bi- State” population of Sage 

Grouse is being considered a separate species and in fact it is not a separate species as defined by most wildlife biologist.

All Both emc0245GB

244. The characteristics of a lek need to be definitively analyzed and esta blished. Buffer zones, where necessary and appropriate, 

to protect Ieks should be imposed only when research and local land fianagers deem them to be esserrtial for greater 

sage-groffie habitat. The size of a buffer zone must be determined on a case-by-case basis and should account for variances irt 

topogtaphy, current utilization, vegetation and other factors. The perimeter should be defined by an irregular polygorr which 

reflects conditions. Rather than an arbitrary diarrreter dictated by policy,observation data should he used to derermine the 

maximum lck buffer perimeter. Areas which provide hahitat for nesting and brooding should be defined in a similar fashion.

All Both fxc0006GB

245. We have observed sage grouse on our Forest allotments on ridges and near water developments and creeks. In the fall on 

warm days we can find grouse where our cattle have grazed areas around water developments and springs. On cool days the 

sage grouse can be found on ridges and rocky hillsides with low brush and grasses. Many factors have been listed as possible 

causes for the decline in sage grouse populations. But nature also has cycles of its own. What is the possibility that this is a 

cycle in the sage grouse's survival over history? Over the years we have found that cool wet spring weather produces a poor 

hatch. The last few springs have been cool and wet up into the month of June. That surely has hurt the sage grouse population. 

Regulation can't correct this problem.

All Both fxc0012GB

246. The government has been managing 87% of Nevada land since the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. During this BLM managem.ent 

period, sage grouse populations have peaked and decreased. When the population peaked, therewere many more sheep and 

cattle grazing on the BLM land, predator control was a major investment with 1080 being used prevalently, fire was used to 

control total sagebrush thickets, invasion of Junipers and wild horses were controlled and sagebrush range conversion to 

crested wheatgrass was encouraged. When the BLM' started changing their policies from the past ones to the current ones 

correlates with the beginning of the decrease of sage grouse populations.

All Both fxc0013GB

247. -We contend that the peak bird populations were man caused through development of meadows and water sources, predator 

control, and cattle and sheep grazing. The current decline is caused by regulations that are stifling these activities.

All Both fxc0013GB

248. A major defense mechanism is sheer large numbers in winter groups. Early consideration of remnant groups caused some 

habitat to be abandoned. Now as numbers decline the large group defense mechanism is becoming less effective.

All Both cfc0011RM

249. More work needs done on captive breeding programs, & private enterprise should be allowed participation. While this could 

eventually result in someone making a profit (antathema to many displaced communist do-gooders) the result could be 

greater numbers of grouse- the real bottom line!!

All Both cfc0018RM

250. There seems to be too much emphasis on "studying" these chickens. Radio collaaring is not a good idea --too many birds die. 

A 70% mortalilty rate does not make for a sustainable population.

All Both cfc0032RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-462 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

251. The RMP should take a hard look at places where cattle have been removed to see what impact this has had on the sage 

grouse.

Grazing clears areas the grouse can use as leks. Stock ponds provide water. Disturbance encourages growth that can provide 

nesting cover the following spring.

All Both emc0013RM

252. Characteristics of wilderness-quality lands such as naturalness, roadlessness, and primitive settings are also valuable 

characteristics of important sage-grouse habitat. Protecting lands with wilderness characteristics can support the principles 

for protecting and managing sage-grouse habitat as outlined in BLM's National Strategy and reiterated in IM 2012-043, namely 

protecting unfragmented habitats and minimizing habitat loss and fragmentation

All Both emc0234GB

253. Under FLPMA, the inventory of resources on the public lands must "be kept current so as to reflect changes in conditions and 

to identifY new and emerging resource and other values." 43 U.S.C. § 1711(a). FLPMA requires BLM to rely on its public lands 

inventory when updating land use plans. Id. at § 1711 (c)( 4). The REAs will provide key information that will assist BLM in 

updating and maintaining its inventory of public lands. BLM should incorporate this information into the sage grouse process 

and use the data in creating a strategy for recovery of the species.

All Both emc0234GB

254. Further, a vigilant science-based monitoring system should be set out in the sage-grouse process in order to address 

unforeseeable shifts to the ecosystem. "Such intervals and standards shall be based on the sensitivity of the resource to the 

decisions involved and shall provide for evaluation to detennine whether mitigation measures are satisfactory, whether there 

has been significant change in the related plans of other Federal agencies, State or local governments, or Indian tribes, or 

whether there is new data of significance to the plan." 43 C.F.R. § 1610.4-9. Such vigilant monitoring is absolutely necessary in 

order to create an effective adaptive management framework in the face of climate change.

All Both emc0234GB

255. BLM should recommend that important and sensitive sagebrush ecosystems be protected through conservation designations. All Both emc0234GB

256. Many of the current and future proposed units of the National Landscape Conservation System overlap with areas containing 

greater sage-grouse habitat. One way to help ensure protection of the sagebrush ecosystem for the survival of the species is 

for Congress or the president to expand existing units and designate new units that are added to the Conservation Lands for 

the conservation, protection and enhancement of these areas.

All Both emc0234GB

257. Ecosystem-based management ofthe Conservation Lands extends beyond the borders to the important and sensitive lands 

and waters that provide habitat for sage grouse and other wildlife on public lands that may not have adequate management 

prescriptions in place to allow for the species to survive. BLM has committed to conservation of sage grouse and its habitat 

and should use Conservation Lands as a tool to achieving those conservation goals and recommend the addition of more 

conservation areas to BLM's Conservation Lands portfolio in order to facilitate the survival of the species.

All Both emc0234GB

258. Recommendations: BLM should actively research the impacts of climate change and other stressors on sage grouse habitat as 

part of the strategy to recover populations. BLM's plan should include specific direction for the role that the National 

Conservation Lands and science can play in addressing and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

All Both emc0234GB

259. We also believe the impact of the pipeline on migratory corridors has been overlooked. While alternative B bisects only a 

small portion of Montana sage-grouse core area 1, it bisects key migratory pathways for sage-grouse coming from and moving 

All Both emc0034RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-463

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

to Canada. Because sage-grouse from core areas 1 and 2 provide ‘source’ populations for sage-grouse that are federally listed 

as endangered in Canada, it is imperative that we not disrupt their migration in this region. All pump stations and other 

permanent structures should be placed a minimum of 2 miles (3.2 km) from the nearest lek, with a preferred distance of >4 

miles (6.4 km) from active leks, based upon the best-available data from Naugle et al. (2011). Power lines should be buried 

whenever possible to decrease impacts from aerial predators. These recommendations hold for all types of oil and gas 

development within the range of greater sage-grouse and should be applied to the Keystone XL pipeline on BLM lands without 

exception.

260. The petition also notes that the known historic habitat for Sage Grouse is impossible to accurately determine. The BLM has 

already published a map which identifies all existing range, and probable historic range. We have serious concerns regarding 

the identification of historic range based on anecdotal information. Even if the anecdotal information is correct the mere 

presence of Sage Grouse does not mean it was ever a significant species in the areas identified.

All Both emc0032RM

261. We are greatly concerned that conservation and environmental groups have hijacked and abused the Endangered Species Act 

as way to stymie all "human" development and roll the western landscape back to a pre-European condition. The extent of this 

strategy is evident by the consideration given to "potential" habitat. While we support collaborative partnership efforts being 

made to preserve current and proven historic Sage Grouse habitat on a voluntary basis, in effort to conserve the species and 

avoid a listing, we object to the very concept of "potential" habitat. Potential habitat is just a tool used by those opposed to 

multiple-uses to lock up public and private lands in areas that may have never supported any populations of Sage Grouse, and 

for many reasons may not support any Sage Grouse now.

All Both emc0032RM

262. The SG data that I've reviewed does not come anywhere near meeting endangered species criteria. The populations are 

widespread and for the past five years the populations for the most part are not in an accelerating decline. In fact, in some

areas SG populations have increased, and in no regional area can population reductions be considered endangered. A much 

more data-based region by region analysis must be presented to support the premise that the SG is potentially threatened. 

Data does not support it and just because one area may be undergoing SG population decline, does not mean an area with a 

stable SG population should have any restrictive use rules.

All Both emc0260GB

263. The data shows rather dramatically different population trends in different regions. Rather than a "one size fits all" approach 

to rule making, the BLM should prioritize areas of greatest concern based upon real population data. In other words:

1) regions that have demonstrated stable SG populations for the past several years should not have any special SG protection 

rules; 

2) Regions that have minimal SG population declines should have minimal new sage grouse protection rules. All regions should 

be monitored to see iffuture additional protections or reductions in protections are required. Regions of greatest concern 

should have protections that are realistic, but to the largest extent possible, do not significantly impede the normal 

multiple-land uses for those lands, such as recreation, grazing, logging or mining. I would strongly suggest restrictive rules be 

kept to a minimum for all areas with strong SG population monitoring, and if population materially declines, then increase 

protective rules. SG is not in any danger of becoming extinct, so a scalab.le approach to restrictive land use rules is absolutely 

warranted.

All Both emc0260GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-464 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

264. 5) Clarification/suggestions

! Page 7 of the NTT Report states "To reach this objective, it will be necessary to achieve the following sub‐objectives for 

priority habitat: Designate priority sage‐grouse habitats for each WAFWA management zone (Stiver et al. 2006) across the 

current geographic range of sage‐grouse that are large enough to stabilize populations in the short term and enhance 

populations over the long term." On page 9, the NTT Report states "It will be necessary to achieve the following 

sub‐objectives for general habitat: 

Assess general sage‐grouse habitats to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused by perturbations and/or 

disturbances and provide connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011) between priority areas."

Because of the reference to enhancing populations over the long-term and replacing "lost priority habitat", all EISs should 

depict and quantify the status of all sage-grouse habitats using HAF terminology as to, for example, suitable and occupied, 

suitable but unoccupied and potentially suitable, irrespective of whether they are priority or general sage-grouse habitats. The 

approach should be consistent range-wide.

All Both emc0113GB

265. 17b) Comment: Activity plans and Habitat Assessments

Consider issuing guidance that no activity planning effort will be initiated until a complete HAF evaluation has been completed 

for the entire planning area under consideration and adjacent sage-grouse habitats that are either part of a sage-grouse 

population's annual range or that may be impacted by activities in the activity plan area under consideration

All Both emc0113GB

266. 22) Comment: Tracking changes in the amount and status of sage-grouse habitat Presumably the BLM will prepare annual or 

other periodic reports tracking changes in greater sage-grouse habitat, gains and losses in acreage and suitability. During the 

EIS process, consider identifying what parameters will be tracked for such reporting, and solicit comments for additional 

parameters that might be considered. In addition to changes traditionally tracked, such as due to fire, restoration treatments, 

physical disturbance and infrastructure, consider also tracking acoustic and viewshed footprints, and changes in habitat 

suitability.

All Both emc0113GB

267. However I would like to know whose research, if any, BLM is using in determining your Sage Grouse policy. I have spent many 

hours of time on BLM land around the Elko/Jackpot area and have seen a vast number of these birds, (which I do Not hunt), 

from the roads and hiking. The areas where I do not see as many birds, mostly in the nesting season, have a higher 

concentration of skunk, fox and coyote populations.

I have talked to the USFS people in charge of their grouse survey and their numbers do not match with what I see. Possibly, 

because they are not out and about as much and they are are trying to rely on their tracking collars to much

All Both emc0267GB

268. In preparing the EIS, the County recommends the BLM examine the historic and current impact of predation and natural low 

recruitment on the overall numbers of the sage-grouse as these impacts and how management can help these other factors is 

lacking in the GSGCM report. It has been suggested that as the United States federal policy changed over time from the early 

1970's, certain tools were eliminated that were used to control certain predator populations such as coyotes, and habitat 

improvement project are now under-funded. It has also been suggested that because of these policy changes the SGS 

population numbers in the United States significantly decreased (as documented in research conducted by John W. Connelly, 

All Both emc0058RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-465

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

recognized sage-grouse biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Blackfoot, ID) because the predators were no 

longer heavily controlled and other factors have negatively impacted habitats. This research suggests that the high population 

numbers reported in the late 1960s (showing approximately 350% of the 2003 population according to Connelly) were the 

result of significant predator control and that the normal population numbers were likely much less. In other words, the EIS 

should carefully review and present research that examines the rise and fall of the GSG populations with the rise and fall of

predator control policy and habitat improvement/management to place rea listic population numbers and other population 

control factors into context, and not solely place the burden of protecting sage-grouse on the energy industry.

269. preservation of the sage grouse is essential to the continued balance of the prarie eco system All Both emc0085RM

270. With regards to linkages between priority and priority habitats, these linkages should be given a priority status, therefore 

adding to and extending the coverage and classification of priority habitat. This is given due to an acknowledgement that 

priority habitats are currently classified due to known lek sites. However, currently considered areas of high priority are also 

areas in which oil and gas development is taking place on both public and private lands. Therefore, continual and arguably 

permanent disturbance has already taken. Since the BLM has the only potential to guarantee saved habitat for the Greater Sage 

Grouse, I argue that more extensive measures need to be taken to define GSG habitat for the next twenty year plan. The 

current NTT goals and objectives do not address this important consideration, and fall short in the agency’s responsibility to 

protect the Greater Sage Grouse and its habitat.

All Both emc0074RM

271. With regards to linkages between general and general habitats, these linkages should also be given a general status, therefore 

withdrawing them from further consideration of their status.

All Both emc0074RM

272. When a priority and general linkage overlap, the linkage will default to a priority status. All Both emc0074RM

273. The first step should be to determine how many sage hens exist in NV. Before a capital heavy study is gone, you should 

determine if the sage hens are endangered. Maybe there are many birds and this is all a waste of money and time.

All Both emc0098RM

274. First Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a species can only be listed as "endangered" if it is in imminent danger of 

extinction, or as "threatened" if it is in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. The minimum effective population for 

greater sage-grouse to protect the species from the long-term risk of extinction range-wide has been determined by the FWS 

to be 5,000 mature birds, while the minimum effective population on a regional scale has been determined to be 500 breeding 

adults. See FWS Findings (footnote 4) at pages 13959 and 13985. The proposed EIS process must analyze the current 

population level in relationship to the minimum effective population. The current estimated population for greater 

sage-grouse is between 350,000 and 535,000 birds, which is 70 to 107 times greater than the "minimum effective population" 

of 5,000 birds. See FWS Findings (footnote 4) at page 13921. In fact, given the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of

decline of 1.4% per year (see FWS Findings (footnote 4) at page 13922), it would take 300 to 330 years for the estimated 

current greater sage-grouse population to dwindle to the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds. Clearly, the greater 

sage-grouse is not endangered with imminent extinction, and it is unreasonable to conclude that the species is threatened with 

extinction in the foreseeable future, so there is no reason to list the greater sage-grouse as "endangered" or "threatened" 

under the ESA. Comments at a hearing in Elko, Nevada on the evening of March 21 by a USFW representative confirmed that 

the beginning number for which is being used to establish initial Sage Grouse numbers, which is 2 million, was not based on 

All Both emc0299GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-466 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

actual numbers of Sage Grouse but rather an estimated acreage of Sage brush ecosystem for which numbers were 

extrapolated. This determination is seriously flawed and in fact history has plenty of records to show that this is incorrect. 

History shows that there were few Sage Grouse in the early to middle 1800's considered pre-settlement and as the lands were 

settled and agriculture started creating more and more good habitat for Sage Grouse the population started to increase. As 

livestock numbers increased in the late 1800's and early 1900's the grass base was used enough that more Sage brush was 

encouraged and again the Sage Grouse population was provided an improving habitat that helped their population expand to 

a high point sometime in the late 1960's. Because of high numbers of livestock, particularly Cattle, on the public and private 

rangelands, fire danger was kept to a minimum and few range fires of any size were recorded. There was a positive correlation

between cattle numbers and Sage grouse as you can see from Table 1. showing Cattle and Sheep and Sage Grouse numbers. 

The Sage Grouse data is from written history, the best information available, up to 1970 and then from 1970 on from US Fish 

and Wildlife Service records. Some University Studies have also shown this positive correlation i.e.; "Anthropogenic and 

Natural Determinants of the Population of a Sensitive Species: Sage Grouse in Nevada" Gerrit Cornelis van Kooten, Alison 

Eagle and Mark Elswerty of University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis 

Research Group. The 33 page report is available at 

https://web.uvic.ca/~repa/publications/REPA%20working%20papers/WorkingPaper2004-08.pdf . Using a hypothetical 

Ecosystem need vs. a actual threatened or endangered population is not an acceptable multiple resource management tool.

NOTE: Table 1, Number of Animals by Species, included in original email

275. We believe it is the obligation of BLM to protect and manage CEUR habitat under the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA). We understand BLM is not required or responsible for meeting the needs or desires of private 

interests.

The Special Status Species Policy mandates that BLM "shall ensure that actions authorized, funded or carried out by BLM do 

not contribute to the need for the species to become listed" (BLM Manual 6841.06C). The Greater Sage-grouse EIS must 

comply with the sensitive species policy.

All Both emc0316GB

276. PFA believes BLM's Preliminary Sage-grouse Habitat Map, based on the Wyoming Core Model, does not accurately reflect 

what is happening on the ground in Idaho. It is not a true picture of sage-grouse habitat in Idaho.

When we place the BLM's map of Idaho side by side with the Idaho Sage-grouse Conservation Plan maps (2009 and 2010), 

derived from Idaho Fish and Game data and local working groups, the key and restoration areas on the Idaho maps are larger 

than the core habitat polygons on the BLM map. On the BLM's map, General Habitat and Priority Habitat for small 

populations, and ones already cut off by development, are smaller. The BLM map sacrifices important sagebrush habitat, 

especially winter habitat, and excludes many areas where restoration is essential.

There is nothing in the Instruction Memorandum 12-27-2011 that assures us that the BLM will protect "general" habitat in any 

meaningful way. On the BLM's map, if General Habitat is open to development and Priority Habitat can have 3 to 5 % percent 

All Both emc0316GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-467

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

development, it appears there will be an even greater loss of habitat. Also, when we look at the BLM map general habitat, 

(where development is allowed) many surround small priority habitat areas, chopping up this essential habitat and eliminating 

connectivity. This could push Sage-grouse into smaller and smaller areas and extirpating them altogether. It is our 

understanding that the BLM's core model is based on lek surveys for the most part, but does not seem to include important 

wintering habitat etc., thus leaving out other large tracts of intact sagebrush steppe habitat essential to CEUR at both high and 

low elevations. Idaho has already lost a lot of sage steppe to development and degradation. The Greater Sage-grouse is a 

landscape species which requires huge tracts of undeveloped and intact sagebrush steppe. An example of the core model not 

working is the recent Powder River Basin Study.

277. Again, the Special Status Species Policy mandates that BLM "shall ensure that actions authorized, funded or carried out by BLM 

do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed (BLM Manual 6841.06C). We believe that BLM is not ready to 

preserve sage-grouse as a landscape species as mandated by the Special Status Species Policy or directed by their own NTT. 

We cannot find any conservation measures that protect Sage-grouse habitat from energy projects, destructive BLM and USFS 

grazing management etc. now or later.

All BLM emc0316GB

278. The BLM's Preliminary Sage-grouse Habitat map for Idaho seems to be a lek-based model that does not represent Idaho's 

more "diverse and naturally fragmented landscape." It fails to include all of the habitat shown in Idaho's Sage-grouse 

Conservation Plan (ISCP) maps 2009 and 2010. These Idaho's maps are based on data collected by state and federal agencies, 

as well as local working groups, and show all areas of year round use by Greater Sage Grouse, including intact sage steppe.

All Both emc0316GB

279. There is a need to develop an honest, environmentally sound baseline for sage steppe habitat quality based on "best available

science" across the board, east and west. Many of the same impacts and threats occur across all Greater Sage-grouse habitat 

such as grazing, infrastructure, roads, invasive grasses and weeds, energy projects etc.

All Both emc0316GB

280. Do not use the BLM's Preliminary Sage-grouse Habitat map for Idaho, as it does not realistically depict Idaho's Sage-grouse 

habitat. It fragments habitat and reduces connectivity amplifying impacts such as new development, and leaves out important 

intact sagebrush areas important to Sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species. Three percent development is still 

quite large when considering linear disturbances such as livestock developments, roads, fences, transmission lines, and wind 

farms.

All Both emc0316GB

281. Use the Idaho Conservation Plan map 2010 with data collected by state, federal, and local working groups, it shows the key, 

restoration, and historical intact sagebrush steppe area.

All Both emc0316GB

282. Close large tracts of key and restoration sage grouse habitat on public land to any development period, for the foreseeable 

future;

All Both emc0316GB

283. Not allow or issue permits for new right-of-ways and/or development of any kind, suspend and review any pending projects 

in key and restoration areas that are currently used by Sage grouse, and make sure projects on the ground are meeting their 

obligations;

All Both emc0316GB

284. Complete realistic (not a computer model) analysis of Sage grouse habitat in Idaho, identify populations that have the greatest 

need, such small and isolated ones, and apply conservation measures now;

All Both emc0316GB

285. Provide more public transparency and realistic information online, assessments done on the natural resources in sage grouse All Both emc0316GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-468 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

habitat and the methods used. Example; the NTT does not provide population numbers or status of populations. There is no 

discussion of any management changes in the works to stop further habitat deterioration; It appears that maps and information

was given to State Governors and their "Task Force" before the public could review them.

286. Develop an honest, environmentally sound baseline for sagebrush-steppe habitat quality based on "best available science" 

across the board east and west. Many of the same impacts and threats occur across all Sage-grouse habitat such as grazing. 

Infrastructure, roads, invasive grasses and weeds etc.;

All Both emc0316GB

287. Develop an understanding of the levels of severity of impacts and conditions in sage-grouse habitats that can serve as a basis 

for applying conservation measures, both active and passive, that will realistically conserve and restore these areas;

All Both emc0316GB

288. Apply "mitigation by avoidance" in all key areas as these important areas are for the most part irreplaceable. Disturbed areas 

within key habitat should be restored and not used to develop new projects or infrastructure. As stated in BLM's Best 

Management Practices(BMPs), "Place new utility developments, powerlines, pipelines, etc. in existing utility or transportation 

corridors".

All Both emc0316GB

289. Make sure that mitigation in restoration areas is done using "best available science". All developments in key and restoration 

habitat should not be "grandfathered in" but assessed and/or removed for their impact on Sage-grouse and Sage-grouse 

habitat.

All Both emc0316GB

290. BLM should take this opportunity to seek greater independence and breadth of opinion and expertise in the review and 

application of scientific information to support development of sage grouse management policy, conservation measures, 

adaptive management, and BMPs. By recognizing the more diverse scientific and technical expertise available, the BLM can 

increase the number of management options available for consideration, as well as increase the overall effectiveness of its 

National Sage Grouse Strategy.

At present, a small number of sage grouse specialist/authors have had what appears to be a disproportionate influence on 

formulating federal policy on sage grouse, which has also limited the diversity of opinions and expertise available to decision 

makers. This includes the recent and highly Influential Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species 

and Its Habitats (Knick and Connelly 2011). This monograph figured prominently in the "warranted but precluded" 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decision on sage grouse and in the recent NTT Report. 

Neither of these documents a employ hypothesis testing approach (or mention the term). The data used in several of the most 

influential monograph papers are not publicly available, which precludes an independent assessment and is contrary to the 

Information Quality Act, Department of Interior's information quality guidelines (requiring that reproducibility "shall generally 

require sufficient transparency about data and methods that an independent reanalysis could be undertaken by a qualified 

member of the public," (Department of Interior 2002)), as well as recent White House policy directives (Obama 2009; 

Holdren 2010, 2011).

The review standards established by the National Academies address these issues and may be found at 

http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html. By implementing these standards, National Academy of Sciences has sought 

All BLM emc0346GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-469

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

to diversify its review panels with independent experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds in order to "conceive new 

ways of thinking about a problem" and "to provide a balance of perspectives." Because the effects from future RMP 

amendments will potentially affect multiple use constituents and state economies, API strongly recommends that BLM adopt 

these review standards for future activities related to the development of a National Sage Grouse Strategy. API also strongly 

recommends that prior to developing the strategy, BLM should convene an independent panel of scientists from diverse 

disciplines and backgrounds to provide the agency a review of the current NTT Report. That review should also seek to 

provide BLM alternative approaches to Greater Sage-grouse management that also meet the objectives of Report. API 

recommends that BLM work with the affected State Governors for appointments to this panel.

291. In addressing threats identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), we propose that the BLM formulate multiple, 

alternative hypotheses regarding the specific cause and effect mechanisms of each threat. Then the agency should deduce 

testable (e.g. potentially falsifiable) predictions, and establish thresholds for testing these against the available scientific data. 

This strategy of strong inference has the greatest potential for rapid advancement of scientifically informed decision making 

(Platt 1964; Rehme et al. 2011). This is especially important to adaptive management as proposed by the BLM. API believes 

that if BLM elects not to employ this approach, the agency must disclose in the strategy and subsequent RMP amendments the 

scientific uncertainty that is present concerning specific cause and effect mechanisms affecting Greater Sage-grouse 

persistence.

All BLM emc0346GB

292. API is well aware that programs based on priority habitats are moving forward in Wyoming and Utah and potentially other 

states, and respects the collaborative efforts of many participants to get to this point. Though these API comments offer 

criticism of some of the methodologies and assumptions that may have been employed in good faith efforts to designate 

priority habitats, we do not intend to discourage work that is underway. However, while we appreciate BLM’s willingness to 

involve states and multiple use stakeholders in these efforts and urge BLM to continue, we believe it essential for BLM to 

provide a quantifiable, biological basis for areas that are considered to be Priority Sage Grouse Habitats and that agency 

proposes to protect from anthropogenic disturbance. We note that for at least one of the components of priority sage grouse 

habitats (migration and connectivity corridors), the authors of the NTT Report admit at page 52 that they cannot be defined: 

"Almost no information is available regarding the distribution and characteristics of migration corridors for sage-grouse 

(Connelly et al. 2004)."

The significance of this deficiency is potentially far reaching for species, BLM and its constituents and must be addressed. First, 

without a precise definition or clear cut criteria, there is potential for large areas that have a zero or near zero probability of 

sage grouse use to be defined as essential to migration and connectivity, even though there may be no empirical data 

demonstrating their regular use by sage grouse or their importance to population viability. This has the secondary effect of 

diverting resources away from higher priority habitat and threats of greater importance, while imposing unnecessary 

regulatory burdens. Second, sage grouse are more affected by some types of anthropogenic disturbance than others, but the 

effect of these on migration rates is unknown. Third, experience with other ESA listings has shown that imprecisely defined 

characterizations of essential habitat, such as "priority habitat" in this case, have a strong likelihood of being re-designated as 

"critical habitat." And finally, once such designations are institutionalized they can be difficult to revise without litigation, even 

All BLM emc0346GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-470 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

when new data become available (i.e. Agua Caliente vs. Scarlett).

293. The "professional judgment" calling for a 3% anthropogenic disturbance threshold in priority habitats does not address specific 

threats, nor take into account the type of disturbance, local conditions, or mitigations that are to be used. This professional 

judgment is not the result of an independent quantitative assessment but is the opinion of a small number of collaborators who 

share a similar point of view.

Additionally, the earliest study cited in support of the 3% anthropogenic disturbance threshold (Holloran 2005), did not 

acknowledge that the BLM had intentionally waived stipulations on the Pinedale Anticline in order to facilitate research on 

impacts without these stipulations. Therefore, the impacts reported by Holloran (2005) do not correspond to impacts under 

stipulations required at the time, nor account for current impacts under more recent stipulations and BMPs. And finally, none 

of the authors cited in support of this professional judgment had removed the artifact of a natural cyclical population 

fluctuation that repeatedly occurs over a broad area during the course of this and other studies. If conservation measures 

adopted by the BLM are to be science-based, all evidence must be taken into account, including contrary evidence.

The cited studies (Johnson et al. 2011, and Naugle et al. 2011a,b) are not as definitive as claimed with regards to susceptibility 

of sage grouse to either discrete or diffuse disturbance. First, Johnson et al. (2011) utilized extremely weak statistical inference 

and there are simply not enough years of data to reliably support inferences with single variables, much less multiple variables. 

And, second, Naugle et al. (2011b) presented a partial review of the scientific literature on energy development and sage 

grouse. Naugle was an author on four of the seven reports and papers used in the review, and the majority of the papers 

focused on impacts to sage grouse in intensively developed areas.

All BLM emc0346GB

294. The stated sub-objectives for general habitat primarily involve providing for connectivity. As discussed earlier, criteria to 

ascertain the connectivity of populations have yet to be established. The supporting citation (Knick and Hanser 2011), was a 

correlative study that only examined potential variables such as the persistence of leks (but not populations), and did not deal 

with the question of connectivity of populations.

All BLM emc0346GB

295. As we had noted earlier, the 3% threshold, a four-mile NSO around leks, and seasonal restrictions are unnecessarily 

restrictive in light of available scientific information. They do not address the underlying and mitigatable cause and effect 

mechanisms that can result in impacts to sage grouse.

All BLM emc0346GB

296. The monitoring of sage grouse populations is an essential component of adaptive management. Yet, the resolution of male lek 

counts is limited, and there is no demonstrated correspondence between male lek counts and actual population number or 

trends. Given the profound level of investment that is being asked of local communities and the American public to implement 

a series of far-reaching conservation measures to benefit sage grouse, the development of improved methods for censusing 

sage grouse populations is a critically important. To address this issue, we suggest that the BLM issue a competitive Request 

for Proposals to generate new ideas on how to improve upon existing lek counts or develop new methods for obtaining 

reliable data on sage grouse population distribution, abundance, and trends. Such a competitive approach offers the

best opportunity for innovation.

All BLM emc0346GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-471

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

297. In order to strengthen the scientific basis for Priority and General Habitat, and avoid situations where these habitat 

designations are presented to the public as de facto determinations, we encourage the BLM to include the development of 

criteria and determination of these habitats within the scope of NEPA, and work with states on their development.

While we acknowledge that the NTT report on conservation measures is a work in progress, we were unable to find any 

quantitative criteria for designation of Priority or General sage-grouse habitat. The criteria used to make these designations 

will be of fundamental importance to the BLM planning process, including the development and implementation of appropriate 

conservation measures. As noted in 8.2 above, API is aware that programs based on priority habitats are moving forward in 

Wyoming and Utah and respects the collaborative efforts of many contributors to reach this point and has no desire to stop 

work that is underway. The criteria for designating sage grouse habitat of importance, whether by BLM on lands it manages, 

or as a result of state planning efforts that make similar determinations, will be of lasting, and far-reaching significance to the 

public and regulated community. Yet, Priority Habitat, General Habitat, and ‘connectivity’ were described by the NTT only in 

general terms.

Our search for additional information on how Priority and General Habitat could be quantified revealed one BLM state office

that has chosen to establish criteria and move ahead with the determination of these, along with implementing a habitat 

connectivity model with which to set aside additional Priority Habitat (Makela and Major 2011). From what we could 

determine, these were developed and could potentially be implemented without the benefit of the NEPA review process.

We raise the issue that the methodology used by Makela and Major (2011) to define connectivity does not appear to be 

biologically sound. This is because the model developed by Knick and Hanser (2011) incorrectly assumes that the spatial 

distribution of leks represents the dispersal ability of sage grouse. Beyond a distance of 18 km, leks/populations are deemed

isolated. (The 18 km criterion comes from Knick and Hanser (2011) who conducted an analysis of spatial patterns of leks 

across the range of sage grouse. They selected an arbitrary point on a spatial analysis curve “at which decreasing potential 

dispersal distance decreases the connections among leks and increases the number of components” (Knick and Hanser 2011, 

Figure 16.3)). They ignore the fact that sage grouse are capable of dispersing over much greater distances (e.g. Lyon 2000; Bush 

2009; Bush et al. 2011; Tack et al. 2011)

The application by Makela and Major (2011) did not take into account the fact that the 18km distance was an artifact of the 

spatial analysis rather than a biologically significant threshold. The authors simply justified their choice by uncritically citing 

Knick and Hanser (2011), who "found an 18 km area to be a reliable connectivity threshold for greater sage-grouse, i.e. leks 

within 18 km of one another tend to be more connected than those farther out."

It should be of concern to the BLM that the outputs of such GIS spatial models are highly dependent upon the assumptions 

they are based upon and may not accurately reflect the actual sage grouse habitat use, population structure, or local conditions 

(e.g. uncritical use of an 18km threshold for defining connectivity, especially since recent data shows movements over far 

All BLM emc0346GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-472 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

greater distances). Thus, while spatial models such as Makela and Major’s (2011) may be useful heuristic tools, they require a 

substantial amount of improvement and inclusion of empirical data before they are suitable as the basis for land management 

decisions.

298. We acknowledge that managing habitats to retain connectivity is an important long-term goal of conservation efforts for many 

species, including sage grouse. However, it is clear that the dispersal abilities have been consistently underestimated in the 

development of habitat use and population persistence models (i.e. Garton et al. 2009, 2011; Knick and Hanser 2009, 2011; 

Makela and Major 2011). Therefore, it is important for the BLM and the NTT to acknowledge recent genetic data and results 

by Bush (2009) and Bush et al. (2011). These studies utilized assignment tests to identify the source population of sage grouse 

that had dispersed, and isolation-by-distance measures to quantify the overall degree of genetic linkage among populations. In 

addition, ongoing studies (including Tack et al. 2011) have employed satellite global positioning system transmitters that have 

revealed dispersal of sage grouse over much greater distances and more frequently than previously thought. These studies are 

highly significant to the BLM’s conservation efforts for the following reasons:

1) Male and female sage grouse disperse and migrate over greater distances (many over 100km and some up to 300 km) than 

documented by traditional radio-tracking studies, thus requiring a recalibration of assumptions used in habitat connectivity 

models.

2) Sage grouse are capable of dispersing long distances and are able to do so over and around areas of fragmented habitat and 

human development. This means that presumed movement corridors do not necessarily require the same high-level of 

protection as Priority Habitat and could be classified as General Habitat or as a third, less restrictive category that takes into 

account this new information. 

3) A higher level of long distance dispersal and a greater genetic linkage among sage grouse populations, even across 

fragmented landscapes and among peripheral populations, indicates that extinction predictions that figured prominently in the 

ESA listing decision (Garton el al. 2009, 2011) were overestimated. This is because long distance dispersal and gene flow (even 

when as low as one successful breeding migrant per generation among populations) will tend to maintain effective population 

sizes over time, as well as increase the potential for re-colonization should a population become locally extirpated. 

4) The methodologies utilized by Bush (2009), Bush et al. (2011), Tack et al. (2011) could be used to identify the natural 

features and/or human development that result in absolute barriers to dispersal. In turn this will inform the type and extent of 

development that could proceed in habitat deemed important for connectivity.

All BLM emc0346GB

299. It is important that the agencies emphasize that any management changes that are undertaken must be linked to the population 

status of the bird and this must be conducted on a site-specific basis. If sage grouse populations are stable, there should be no 

need to trigger additional management measures. If management changes are deemed necessary, those changes need to reflect 

the importance of the habitat and account for the primary threats first.

All Both emc0392GB

300. In 2001, PPRO‟ s North Antelope Rochelle Mine (NARM) voluntarily initiated and funded a project designed to gather data on 

the status of Greater Sage Grouse populations using habitat in and adjacent to the mine area. The immediate goal of this 

ongoing study was to identify key habitats (nesting, brooding and wintering) so that the mine could adequately plan 

reclamation and/or mitigation strategies for this species. Second, vegetative data was collected to evaluate the quality of the 

All Both emc0122RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-473

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

available habitat. Third, reproductive data (nest fate, clutch size, chick survival and adult survival) was collected. Fourth, use of 

reclaimed mine lands was monitored. (Of particular note was the documented use of reclaimed lands at the initiating mine by 

hens and broods. The reclamation used by these grouse supported a diverse and prominent (>25% cover) mosaic of forbs). 

The monitoring program initiated by this mine was expanded to neighboring mines and funded in 2003 through the Wyoming 

Abandoned Coal Mine Lands Research Program (ACMLRP) ¡V (Brown and Clayton 2004). Today, NARM is continuing to 

manage and fund the project on a voluntary basis and has expanded and incorporated it into a broad landscape-wide sage 

grouse collaring and sagebrush mapping research project in partnership with the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem 

Association, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service.

Notable conclusions as of the 2011 report (compiled 11 years of results) include:

"Hen nest success, overall survival, and mortality sources (mainly predation) at NARM appear to be comparable to those 

documented in other populations (Connelly et al. 2000)."

"Nest initiation rates at NARM have remained similar in the previous years, and are comparable to or greater than those 

reported for most other studies (63 to 93%; Connelly et al. 1991, Schroeder 1997). Likewise, overall nest success (at least 

59%) from 2001 through 2008 at NARM has been well within the typical range for sage-grouse (30 to 60%; Schroeder et al. 

1999) and exceeded that (50%) reported by Lyon and Anderson (2003) for both disturbed and undisturbed areas."

"Lyon and Anderson (2003) also found that sage-grouse nested farther from leks in areas that were affected by oil and gas 

development than in undisturbed areas, but that trend has not been supported in the NARM study area. Those authors 

reported that only 26% of nests were within 1.9 miles of a lek in disturbed areas, whereas 91% of nests were within that 

distance in undisturbed areas. In contrast, the documented nest site at NARM (a .disturbed area.) in 2011 was approximately 

0.3 mile from the nearest lek and 88% of the nests in the initial 3-year study were within 1.9 miles of an active lek (Brown and 

Clayton 2004).”

301. A tiered approach to protections requiring more restrictions in priority habitat and less stringent protections in key habitat.

o Designate priority habitat: breeding, late-brood rearing, winter concentration, migration, and connectivity corridors and 

offer additional protections.

All Both emc0128RM

302. BLM must clearly discuss the scientific studies on sage grouse and adopt scientific recommendations and best management 

practices for conservation of sage grouse habitat and species BLM is well aware of the science and recent studies showing 

impacts to sage grouse. BLM must require implementation of best management practices to reduce impacts to sage grouse and 

maintain sage grouse habitat. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. We look forward to BLM

implementing specific actions and policies that will maintain and restore sagebrush habitat and sage grouse populations

All BLM emc0129RM

303. Evidence of the real impact of the above-mentioned benefits has been demonstrated by landscape-scale level statistics. 

Permitted livestock levels (animal unit months, or AUMs) have dropped dramatically on BLM and FS lands from 1940 to today. 

All Both emc0140RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-474 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Greater sage-grouse numbers have mirrored that decline. In Utah, for example, a roughly four-fold decrease in permitted 

livestock AUMs parallels the decline in greater sage-grouse during the same period (see graphs, Appendix A). Also worth 

noting is the fact that mule deer, a species that relies on similar habitat conditions as greater sage-grouse, has suffered the 

same decline.

This decline can be largely attributed to the lack of spring forbs and insects for broods naturally promoted by the added 

disturbance from greater numbers of livestock, and to the loss of the vast numbers of sheep (in Utah, numbers dropped from 

2.2 million in 1930, to .25 million today) that at one time eased predation pressure (because predator control was more 

aggressive and because sheep served as an alternative food source to common predators), and encouraged multiple age 

classes of sage brush. Biologists often point to brood rearing and winter habitat limitations as factors influencing the decline of 

the greater sage-grouse. The diversity of sage brush age classes (once encouraged by greater numbers of sheep) is important 

to providing greater winter nutritional opportunity for the birds. We insist that this relationship be examined in every area

occupied by greater-sage grouse.

304. Timing of multiple-use activities (or the restriction thereof) should not be based on arbitrary calendar dates or time of day. 

Flexibility of these standards should be based on monitoring and observation, not on across-theboard, inflexible standards.

All Both emc0140RM

305. As mentioned above, the agencies should give high deference to state sage-grouse habitat protection plans. These plans have 

been endorsed by FWS and are currently being considered by several other states.

• Criteria for PPH and PGH must be clearly defined.

• When management for greater sage-grouse conflicts with other uses in a proposed PPH or PGH area, the agencies should 

weigh the relative values. Replacing multiple-use management with single-use, greater sage-grouse management has potential 

to be both economically and environmentally detrimental.

• PPH and PGH boundaries should be adjusted to exempt certain pockets of land, based on topography and the behavior of 

the greater sage-grouse. In other words, 100 percent of a polygon is not necessarily greater sage-grouse habitat.

• The federal agencies should allow local and county agencies cooperating agency and/or coordinating status while developing 

drafts of tentative PPH and PGH selection maps (see Cooperation with State & Local Governments and Coordination with 

Existing Local Plans, below). PPH and PGH areas should be modified based on local input.

• In regard to PPH and PGH designations, BLM IM 2012-043 states, “These policies and procedures are in addition to and do 

not replace more protective measures in existing LUPs.” We believe greater sage-grouse plans need not duplicate protections 

already existing in wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), ESA 

critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, and other provisions of existing land use plans.

All Both emc0140RM

306. “The BLM and FS will endeavor to use current scientific information, research, technologies, and results of inventory, 

monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate strategies that will enhance or restore greater sage-grouse habitats.-

State Game and Fish agencies’ greater sage-grouse data and expertise will be utilized to the fullest extent practicable in making 

management determinations on Federal lands.We agree with these commitments to utilize the most up-to-date and accurate 

science and data in order to make informed decisionmaking on this important issue. Unfortunately, as already noted, BLM and 

USFS are contradicting their own policies by making decisions based on incomplete information, and which contradict the 

All Both emc0378GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-475

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

approach being taken by state wildlife agencies (again, we would point to the Wyoming example). Relevant information needs 

to be gathered, and scientific analysis completed, before maps can be finalized.

307. The NTT Report states that tall structures “may” negatively impact grouse populations. Yet, there are very few 

peer-reviewed, experimental studies designed specifically to evaluate the landscape effects of tall structures on sage-grouse. 

Additional research is required to better understand the implications (pro and con) of overhead facilities and other 

aboveground structures on sage-grouse populations. Those efforts are currently under way.

All Both emc0378GB

308. The FWS found the minimum effective population for greater sage-grouse to protect the species from the long-term risk of 

extinction to be as high as 5,000 mature birds (see FWS Findings,3 pgs. 13959 and 13985). The current estimated population 

for greater sage-grouse is greater than 535,000 birds (see FWS Findings,3 Table 4, pg. 13921), which 107 times greater than 

the minimum effective population of 5,000. The estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of decline for greater 

sage-grouse is 1.4% annually (see FWS Findings,3 pg. 13922). If this rate continues into the future, it would take 330 years for 

the estimated current greater sage-grouse population to dwindle to the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds. 

Speculating about what might occur more than three centuries from now reaches into the remote future, well beyond the 

foreseeable future. The greater sage-grouse is not faced with imminent extinction or extinction in the foreseeable future, so 

is not legally qualified to be listed as either “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. There is ample greater sage-grouse 

habitat within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and National Conservation Areas to 

support the minimum effective population of 5,000 breeding adults needed to safeguard the species against extinction. These 

nationally designated areas are already managed under special regulatory mechanisms that in many instances mirror the 

proposed mechanisms that current sage-grouse planning strategies recommend for conservation of the species and its habitat. 

Thus, the proposed EIS process must first analyze greater sage-grouse populations and trends in these nationally designated 

areas to evaluate if any additional regulatory mechanisms are needed to protect greater sage-grouse.

All Both emc0395GB

309. The FWS Findings admit that GSG “numbers are difficult to estimate due to the large range of the species, physical difficulty 

in accessing some areas of habitat, the cryptic coloration and behavior of hens (Garton et al. in press, p. 6), and survey 

protocols” (see FWS Findings,4 page 13921) and ultimately conclude “since neither presettlement nor current numbers of 

sage-grouse are accurately known, the actual rate and magnitude of decline since presettlement times is uncertain” (see FWS 

Findings,4 page 13923, underlined emphasis added). Yet, the FWS Findings assume that GSG populations have significantly 

declined from pre-settlement populations based primarily upon conclusions from several sources indicating that “sage-grouse 

population numbers in the late 1960s and early 1970s were likely two to three times greater than current numbers” (see FWS 

Findings,4 page 13922). However, the cited high populations in the late 1960s and early 1970s tell us nothing about 

pre-settlement numbers, so cannot support that conclusion the GSG population trends reflect a “decline since presettlement 

times”.

The FWS Findings also report that “three groups of researchers using different statistical methods (but the same lek count 

data) concluded that rangewide greater sage-grouse have experienced long-term population declines in the past 43 years, with 

that decline lessening in the past 22 years.” See FWS Findings,4 page 13923. These recent historical observations are 

consistent with testimony of Nevada residents with first-hand knowledge dating back that long ago, or earlier, some as far back 

All Both emc0395GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-476 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

as the 1930s. Again, looking back 43 years (or even 80 years) tells us nothing about presettlement GSG numbers, so cannot 

support the conclusion that GSG population trends reflect a “decline since presettlement times”.

310. The FWS Findings ultimately conclude “(a)lthough the declining population trends have moderated over the past several years, 

low population sizes and relative lack of any sign of recovery across numerous populations is troubling.” See FWS Findings,4 

page 13987. This conclusion is based primarily upon observed GSG population declines from the high numbers in the 1960s 

to today, which cannot be used to establish how current GSG populations compare to pre-settlement populations. Yet, based 

primarily upon information from these two points in history, the FWS Findings assume a relatively linear trend for sage-grouse 

populations, and thus presume that pre-settlement GSG populations were abundant, claiming that “(e)arly reports suggested 

the birds were abundant throughout their range” and estimating that historical populations ranged from 1.6 million to 16 

million birds. See FWS Findings,4 pages 13920 and 13921. The FWF Findings then look forward in time and forecast that 

without regulatory intervention, a persistent downward trend will continue into the future, and sage-grouse populations will 

eventually reach levels at or below the minimum effective population, putting the species at risk for eventual extinction. They 

seem oblivious to the fact that at the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% annually (page 13922) 4 

it would take 330 years for the estimated current GSG population to shrink to the minimum effective population of 5,000 

birds, a time frame that reaches way past the foreseeable future into the remote future. We know from documented sources 

that higher pre-settlement GSG populations assumed by the FWS Findings are simply wrong, at least with respect to known 

GSG population levels at various points in the recorded history of the Great Basin. GSG within the Western Region, 

particularly the Great Basin, were scarce during the presettlement period, much less abundant than today. A report prepared 

by Ira Hansen, Nevada State Assemblyman, regarding pre-settlement GSG populations based upon written accounts of early 

explorers indicates that between about 1820 and 1850, GSG were uncommon throughout Nevada and the Great Basin, being 

observed only rarely by the explorers, and were rare enough that they were seldom included in the diets of the regions Native 

American tribes. 

Similarly, Part III of the King Exploration Report (King)5 based upon field-work conducted by Ornithologist Robert Ridgway 

between June 1867 and August 1869 reports “birds characteristic of the sage-brush are not numerous, either as to species or 

individuals, but several of them are peculiar to these districts;” including Centrocercus urophasianus (GSG). See King,5 page

324, underlined emphasis added. Regarding GSG, Part III of the King report noted “(a)lthough this large and well-known 

Grouse was met with throughout the sage-brush country between the Sierra Nevada and the Wahsatch (sic), we saw it so 

seldom that little was learned of its habits, particularly during the breeding-season.” See King,5 page 600, underlined emphasis 

added. Ridgway characterized the sagebrush communities themselves under the section titled Birds of the sage-brush (page 

323)5 as follows: 

The term "sage-brush" is the western vernacular for that shrubby growth which prevails over the valleys, mesas, and desert 

mountain slopes of the Great Basin to the utter exclusion of all other vegetation, except in isolated and extremely restricted 

places. One species, the "everlasting sagebrush" (Artemisia tridentata), composes by far the larger part of that growth, 

"covering valleys and foot-hills in broad stretches farther than the eye can reach, the growth never so dense as to seriously 

All Both emc0395GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-477

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

obstruct the way, but very uniform over large surfaces, very rarely reaching to the saddle-height of a mule, and ordinarily but 

half that altitude.”

311. The forecast that GSG populations will continue to significantly decline into the foreseeable future also appears to be 

questionable based upon recent studies within the Great Basin. Nevada Department of Wildlife Studies report that GSG 

populations actually increased within the state from 2008 through 2010. It is unreasonable for the FWS Findings to base 

conclusions regarding long-term population trends only upon knowledge regarding population levels at two points in history, 

1960 and today, when we have knowledge regarding sage-grouse populations at other times. Consideration of all historic 

Great Basin population estimates for GSG indicates that pre-settlement populations were low, populations dramatically 

increased between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, populations peaked in the 1930s and remained relatively high through the 

1960s, populations rapidly declined from about 1970 to 2007, and then increased slightly thereafter, at least in Nevada.

All Both emc0395GB

312. When interpreting such population fluctuations over time, it is helpful to identify biologically relevant explanations for the 

points where the population levels significantly change or reverse direction. The GSG trend explanations suggested by the 

FWS Findings do little to explain the majority of the GSG population changes through time described above. Commercial 

hunting could explain the population plateau between about 1930 and 1960, and agricultural conversions could explain the 

rapid population decline beginning in about 1970. However, agricultural conversions were taking place as early as the turn of 

the century, and Great Basin GSG populations were significantly increasing at that time, rather than decreasing. Thus, 

agricultural conversions by themselves are not very effective in explaining GSG population trends over the entire period 

between the early 1800s and today. Indeed, human disturbances of all sorts, roads, railways, fences, reservoirs, towns, 

homesteads, farms, mines, etc. flourished in the early to mid 1900s, and so did the sage-grouse. The mere presence of human 

disturbance within sage-grouse habitat seems to have had little biological relevance across this entire time frame. However, 

specific human activities appear to correlate positively with GSG population trends. Livestock grazing management, with its 

associated intensive development of meadows, hayfields, and surface water sources increased markedly in the Great Basin in 

the late 1800s and early 1900s, creating substantially more edge effect between such wet areas and surrounding sagebrush 

uplands. At the same time, GSG populations boomed. During this period, high livestock densities (both sheep and cattle) 

reduced fine wildfire fuel loads across the Great Basin, and wildfires were rare and small. High densities of livestock dung also 

supplied an abundance of insect activity, particularly in closely grazed meadows and riparian areas. Close grazing in these 

meadows and riparian areas stimulated succulent new herbaceous growth and increased the forb component, thereby 

increasing the quantity and quality of forage for sage-grouse. At the same time, concerted predator control was practiced. In 

fact, predator control was encouraged, subsidized, and implemented on a vast scale by the Federal and State governments. By 

the mid 1900s, Federal and State regulations to reduce livestock numbers and control management actions were 

implemented, restricting and moderating all of the grazing management practices discussed above. The GSG population began 

to plateau at about the same time. By the late 1960s, livestock numbers and grazing levels were significantly scaled back across 

the west, and predator control programs were largely curtailed. Fire fuel levels increased, and the incidence of large-scale 

wildfires rose exponentially. GSG population trends reversed and started to rapidly decline at about the same time. 

Thus, intensive livestock management which diminished the frequency and size of wildfires, and concerted predator control 

All Both emc0395GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-478 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

which greatly reduced GSG loses to these killers, are management actions in the Great Basin that seem to be highly relevant 

to the biology and population status of the GSG and track closely with their population trends over time. It is reasonable to

assume that a return to effective management to increase livestock grazing levels, reduce fire fuel loads and wildfire impacts, 

and increase predator control would result in another significant upward trend in GSG numbers.

In contrast, proposed GSG conservation measures to increase cover levels through further livestock grazing reductions, 

coupled with a lack of conservation measures to address exploding predator populations, writes a prescription to assure that 

GSG populations ultimately decline. Heavier cover for GSG also means higher fire fuel loads within their habitat. As fire fuel 

loads build, they make large-scale wildfires inevitable in many sagebrush communities. Repeat burns increase the risk that 

vegetation shifts to cheatgrass dominance, which further increases wildfire frequency, creating a cycle that eliminates the 

ability of sagebrush communities to re-establish. 

Thus, well-intended conservation measures to benefit GSG by leaving more hiding cover for them will ultimately harm the 

species by converting significant swaths of existing habitat to cheatgrass dominated landscapes that provide no habitat value 

for GSG. This will concentrate the remaining GSG not directly killed by the wildfires into ever shrinking areas, making them 

more susceptible to ever growing predator populations.

313. Less than 1% of the current 535,000 GSG breeding population needs to be conserved to support a minimum effective 

population as high as 5,000 birds (calculations; 5,000minimum effective population rrent population * 100 = 535,000cu

0.93% of current population needed to achieve the minimum effective population). GSG are heavily concentrated in 

high-quality portions of their occupied range (see Doherty,6 pg. 2 which reports that 25% of the known breeding population 

resides in 3.9% of its occupied range). Thus, less than 0.15% of the total acreage of the occupied range needs to be conserved 

to support the minimum effective population (calculations; 3.9%occupied range supporting 25% Breeding Density Area 

[25% Breeding Density Area 

of occupied range needed to support the minimum effective population).

All Both emc0395GB

314. The NOI1 at page 77009 cites the FWS Findings that “regulatory mechanisms to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its 

habitat” are inadequate as a rationale for the proposed project. However, more detailed analysis should reveal that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms are already in place to sustain the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds and safeguard the 

species from extinction. It is highly likely that far more than 5,000 GSG and 0.15% of the species high quality habitat are located 

within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and National Conservation Areas. Thus, these 

nationally designated areas likely already support more GSG and high quality habitat than needed to support the minimum 

effective population and safeguard the species from extinction. Further, these nationally designated areas are already managed 

under special regulatory mechanisms that in many instances mirror the proposed mechanisms that current sage-grouse 

planning strategies recommend for conservation of the species and its habitat. Thus, the EIS process needs to first analyze 

greater sage-grouse population levels and trends in these nationally designated areas to determine how many GSG they 

contain, and the extent to which their habitats are sufficient to sustain the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds under 

the regulatory mechanisms that are already in place.

All Both emc0395GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-479

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

If analysis demonstrates that these nationally designated areas currently support more than 5,000 greater sage-grouse and 

have maintained or increased their populations under the regulatory mechanisms already implemented, then there is no need 

to implement additional conservation measures anywhere else in the bird’s occupied range. Such findings would confirm that 

the GSG does not need to be listed under the ESA because its numbers and trend in these nationally designated areas alone 

meets or exceeds the minimum effective population to safeguard the species from extinction. In contrast, if analysis 

demonstrates that greater sage-grouse population trends in these nationally designated areas are similar to trends elsewhere 

in their currently occupied range, then the entire line of reasoning regarding the factors responsible for GSG population 

declines must be reevaluated. If GSG population declines have occurred in these nationally designated areas that received such 

recognition because of their expansive, wild, undisturbed characteristics, and have been largely protected by existing 

regulatory mechanisms from further human disturbance and development since their designation, then factors other than 

habitat loss, destruction, and fragmentation due to man’s activities must be driving the GSG population declines. Likewise, if 

greater sage-grouse populations have declined in these nationally designated areas despite the regulatory/policy mechanisms 

that constrain their use, all recommendations to implement similar regulatory restrictions across vast additional acreages of 

the GSG range need to be rejected entirely.

If regulatory/policy controls to minimize human disturbance have failed to allow GSG populations to flourish within the vast 

wilderness areas and other nationally designated conservation areas, then it is unreasonable to apply such draconian control 

measures to broad landscapes beyond the boundaries of these areas in the vain hope that such regulation will somehow work 

in other locations. To implement regulatory mechanisms that are certain to severely interfere with other valid existing uses of 

the landscape and negatively impact local and regional economies in the face of evidence that such mechanisms did not reverse 

the plight of the GSG in existing nationally designated areas would be unreasonable, irrational, and counter-productive. 

Instead, if the minimum effective population of GSG necessary to protect the species from extinction has not, and cannot be 

supported within such nationally designated areas, then management practices that were in place when greater sage-grouse 

populations dramatically increased from the mid 1800s to early 1900s need to be identified and implemented again in other 

areas, including increased livestock grazing to reduce wildfire fuel loads, and concerted predator control practices.

315. Despite its size, sagebrush steppe is among the most imperiled landscapes in North America (Wisdom et al. 2005c; Noss et 

al. 1995). Millions of acres have been lost to crop agriculture, urban development, and other land uses (Connelly et al. 2011b), 

while remaining sagebrush habitat is degraded and fragmented by gas and oil drilling, livestock grazing and associated 

infrastructure, unnatural fire, invasive species, roads, fences, utility corridors and related effects Wisdom et al. 2005c; see Map 

3). Habitat loss and degradation continue (Connelly et al. 2011b) and efforts to protect and restore sagebrush steppe are 

inadequate, ineffective and hampered by myriad factors (Wisdom et al. 2005c; Connelly et al. 2011b). The Greater 

Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a sagebrush obligate species whose range has been significantly reduced with the 

loss of sagebrush steppe (see Map 1). Greater Sage-grouse distribution has decreased by 44 percent (Schroeder et al. 2004) 

and populations have experienced long-term declines (Connelly and Braun 1997; Connelly et al. 2004; Anonymous 2008). The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that Greater Sagegrouse warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-480 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

(ESA) in March 2010 (although listing was precluded by other, higher priorities) (75 Fed. Reg. 13910). FWS will finally propose 

sagegrouse for listing under the ESA or determine the species is “not warranted” for protection in fiscal year 2015 in 

accordance with legally binding settlement agreements with conservation organizations.

316. Sage-grouse are a landscape species that use a variety of sagebrush habitats throughout the year (Connelly et al. 2004; 

Connelly et al. 2011a). Large, interconnected areas of sagebrush steppe must be conserved if sage-grouse are to persist 

(Connelly et al. 2011b). Most remaining sagegrouse habitat is publicly owned, most of it managed by the federal government 

(Knick 2011). Historic patterns of land use, conflicting management policies and demand for resources on these lands have left 

little sagebrush steppe protected. Less than 1 percent of sage-grouse current range is within wilderness or other protected 

areas (Knick 2011; see also Map 4). Federal departments and agencies manage more than 70 percent of remaining sagebrush 

steppe (Appendix 1). Although cooperation among many federal and state agencies and private land owners will be necessary 

to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat (Stiver et al. 2006), the federal government and federal public land are key to 

achieving these goals. Federal agencies must prioritize sagebrush conservation if sage-grouse are to persist (Connelly et al. 

2011a). Sage-grouse would benefit from landscape-level planning and conservation (see Braun 2005).

All Both emc0391RM

317. The BLM and USFS should support the National Science Foundation (NSF) to establish Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) 

sites in sagebrush-steppe. None of the existing 26 LTERs in the United States are in sagebrush habitat.5 Sagebrush steppe is 

among the largest landscapes in the United States; supports hundreds of species; and will experience significant change under

current and future management, climate change (Neilson et al. 2005), and other factors. The NSF should establish LTERs in 

each of the seven sage-grouse management zones identified by Stiver et al. (2006).

All Both emc0391GB

318. 1. Habitat Designations

The BLM recognized the need to designate “priority” habitat to conserve Greater Sage-grouse (BLM Memo MT-2010-017, 

“protection priority areas”; BLM Memo WY-2010-012, “key habitat areas”; BLM Memo 2010-071, “priority habitat”; BLM 

Memo 2012-044, “preliminary priority habitat”). Priority habitat is generally defined as “having the highest conservation value 

to maintaining sustainable Greater Sage-grouse populations,” including “breeding, late broodrearing, and winter conservation 

areas” (BLM Memo 2010-071). “Priority habitat will be areas of high quality habitat supporting important sage-grouse 

populations, including those populations that are vulnerable to localized extirpation but necessary to maintain range-wide 

connectivity and genetic diversity” (BLM 2010-071). BLM interim guidance and the announced planning process both depend 

on designation of priority habitat and other “general” habitat (BLM Memo 2012-043; BLM Memo 2012-043). Sage-grouse 

“core areas” in Wyoming should be considered priority habitat, with some modifications (see Map 13).

All Both emc0391GB

319. The NTT report defines “discrete” disturbances to include roads, transmission lines, oil and gas wells, wind turbines and 

similar, definite development (SGNTT 2011: 8). The three percent disturbance threshold does not include “diffuse” 

disturbances; the NTT report identifies livestock grazing and fire (depending on the scale and effects) as diffuse disturbance 

(SGNTT 2011: 8). We are concerned that the NTT report defines the pervasive, tangible, cumulative effects of livestock 

grazing as “diffuse.” The NTT report notes that “diffuse disturbance over broad spatial and temporal scales can have similar,

but less visible effects” (SGNTT 2011: 8). The BLM and USFS should consider heavily grazed areas and range developments as 

discrete disturbance in sagebrush steppe. The agencies should also include extensive, severely burned areas and rangeland 

seedings with nonnative plants among discrete disturbances

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-481

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

320. The NTT report identifies remaining areas outside priority sage-grouse habitat as “general habitat” (SGNTT 2011: 9). The 

NTT report lists sub-objectives for general habitat that include quantifying and delineating general habitat to buffer and 

connect priority areas; serve as potential replacement priority habitat; and serve as potential restoration sites (SGNTT 2011: 

9-10). The recovery alternative, which is structured like the NTT report, also stipulates conservation measures based on 

habitat designation. In addition to “priority” and “general” habitat, the recovery alternative would designate two additional 

habitat types: ACECs and “restoration” habitat. Although the BLM has invited commenters to nominate individual ACECs in 

the planning process, the recovery alternative is more ambitious. It recommends BLM designate a system of ACECs across 

sage-grouse range and prescribes even more restrictive measures for these designations than for priority habitat

All Both emc0391GB

321. Montana BLM previously identified the need for restoration areas where the “goal is to achieve a balance between ongoing and 

future resource use so that enough quality habitat is maintained to allow some residual populations in impacted areas to 

persist” (BLM Memo MT-2010-017). The NTT report promotes restoration of sagebrush habitats (SGNTT 2011: 28), and 

recommends prioritizing restoration projects where environmental variables improve chances for success (citing Meinke et al. 

2009), but is silent on mapping restoration priority areas. FWS recognizes that “[m]eaningful restoration for greater 

sage-grouse requires landscape, watershed, or ecoregional scale context rather than individual, unconnected efforts” (75 Fed. 

Reg. 13917). Consequently, the recovery alternative recommends that federal agencies identify restoration habitat in 

management planning based on their importance to sage-grouse and the likelihood of successfully restoring sagebrush 

communities (Meinke et al. 2009; Wisdom et al. 2005c; see Maps 7 and 8).

All Both emc0391GB

322. d. Guidelines for Designating Sagebrush Reserves

1. Protect Large Expanses of Sagebrush Steppe

Greater Sage-grouse are a landscape species (Connelly et al. 2011a). Migratory populations have large annual ranges that can 

encompass >2,700 km2 (1,042 mi2/667,184 ac) (Knick and Connelly 2011b, citing Dalke et al. 1963; Schroeder et al. 1999; 

Leonard et al. 2000) (the species may use up to 2,500 mi2 per population (Rich and Altman 2001)). Large-bodied birds are 

generally more strongly affected by habitat loss and fragmentation (Winter et al. 2006). Although conclusive data on minimum 

patch size is unavailable (Connelly et al. 2011a), conserving large expanses of sagebrush steppe is the highest priority to 

conserve sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2008; Connelly et al. 2011b). Knick and Hanser (2011) identified ten lek complexes that 

were >5,000 km2 (1,930 mi2/1,235,526 ac) (range 5,395–100,288 km2) and 8 of them contained >100 leks (range 143– 1,139) 

(see Map 9). Some sagebrush-dependent species use different habitat composition, structure or succession than sage-grouse 

prefer. Protecting large blocks of habitat will also help preserve a mosaic of different habitats of varying successional stages 

used by sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species.

All Both emc0391GB

323. 3. Protect Sage-Grouse Leks, and Nesting and Brood-rearing Habitats

The loss and degradation of nesting and brood-rearing habitats, which leads to reduced nesting success and increased chick 

mortality, appears to be a primary cause of declining Greater Sagegrouse populations rangewide (Aldridge and Boyce 2007; 

Holloran et al. 2005). Most sagegrouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat is found near sage-grouse leks. Sage-grouse 

conservation strategies should focus on protecting leks and associated habitat.

• Conservation of sagebrush within 5 km (3.1 miles) of sage-grouse leks was recommended to maintain most nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat used by nonmigratory populations, whereas 18-km radii (11.2 miles) have been recommended for 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-482 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

migratory populations (Wakkinen et al. 1992; Connelly et al. 2000; Holloran and Anderson 2005).

• Braun (2006, unpublished report) recommended restricting surface occupancy and construction of new roads within 5.5 km 

(3.4 mi) of active sage-grouse leks.

• A 4-mile (6.4 km) lek buffer encompassed 74-80 percent of sage-grouse nests in Montana and Wyoming (Moynahan 2004; 

Holloran and Anderson 2005).

• Doherty et al. (2010b), in mapping breeding densities of Greater Sage-grouse rangewide, buffered leks by 8.5 km (5.3 mi), 

identified by Holloran and Anderson (2005: 746) as an area of interest (see Map 10).

• A majority (~90%) of nesting and brood-rearing habitat was within 10 km (6.2 miles) of active leks in Alberta (Aldridge and 

Boyce 2007); 97 percent of nests were found within 6.2 miles of leks where females were marked in the Powder River Basin 

in Montana and Wyoming (Doherty et al. 2010a).

• Sage-grouse nesting habitat was accurately predicted up to 20 km (12.4 mi) from leks in the Powder River Basin in Montana 

and Wyoming (Doherty et al. 2010a).

• Effects of gas and oil drilling on sage-grouse were noticeable out to 12.4 miles from leks (Taylor et al. 2012).

• Movements from lek sites to nesting locations can exceed 25 km (15.5 mi) (Holloran and Anderson 2005).

• Characteristics of sagebrush steppe within 54 km (33.6 miles) of sage-grouse leks might influence seasonal movements and 

also incorporate habitats used outside the breeding season (Swenson et al. 1987; Leonard et al. 2000).

GIS modeling can identify sage-grouse habitat, but only at a larger scales (Doherty et al. 2010a). Within areas identified by GIS 

modeling as nesting habitat, there is some local variability in which sites are actually suitable for nesting (Doherty et al. 2010a). 

For example, sage-grouse nests may be clumped in one area, but not other areas the same distance from a lek.

324. 4. Protect Other Seasonal Habitats

Conservation strategies focused on conserving sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats that fail to address other 

important seasonal habitats may not yield intended benefits for sagegrouse (Connelly et al. 2000; Doherty et al. 2008). For 

example, sage-grouse consume forbs in summer found at mesic sites (e.g., wet meadows, riparian areas) and/or at higher 

elevations (Connelly et al. 2011a, citing others). A lack of mesic sites (for example, during dry years) can be limiting on 

sage-grouse due to lack of summer food sources (Aldridge 2000). Conservation strategies should seek to protect and restore 

mesic sites in sage-grouse habitat. The availability of winter habitat is also important to sage-grouse persistence. The quality of 

winter habitat appears to influence the abundance and condition of female sage-grouse and their nesting effort and clutch sizes 

in spring (Moynahan et al. 2007). The species depends almost exclusively on sagebrush exposed above the snow for food and 

shelter (Connelly et al. 2011a, citing others). Suitable winter habitat is often on wind swept ridges, south-facing slopes or in

protected draws (Braun et al. 2005) (although research in Canada also identified winter habitat is less rugged areas and away 

from energy development and two-tracked roads (Carpenter et al. 2010)). These landscape features may be limited in some 

areas (e.g., Beck 1977). Winter habitat should be locally identified and conserved (Braun et al. 2005, citing Connelly et al. 2000 

and others; Moynahan et al. 2007).

All Both emc0391GB

325. 5. Protect a System of Reserves

A system of reserves must conserve a large proportion of habitat to sustain biological processes and conserve species. The 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-483

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

commonly cited goal of conserving 10 percent of a given landscape lacks basis in science (Soulé and Sanjayan 1998; Svancara 

et al. 2005). Much larger areas, perhaps 50 percent of rangewide distribution, may be necessary to conserve biodiversity and 

ecosystem integrity (Soulé and Sanjayan 1998). Conservation sites identified by experts to protect diverse habitats and species 

(including sage-grouse) in the Great Basin covered 40 percent of the region (Nachlinger et al. 2001, unpublished report). A 

system of reserves must be large enough to achieve the goals of biological representation, and ecological redundancy and 

resiliency within an ecosystem (Svancara et al. 2005). The percentage area needed to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem 

processes should emerge from the biological requirements of species. Braun (2006, unpublished report) recommended 

conserving large blocks of sagebrush steppe (in excess of 20 mi2), one per Township (36 mi2), in fragmented habitat to 

conserve sage-grouse.

A system of reserves should protect centers of species abundance on the landscape. Doherty et al. (2010b) found that, while 

sage-grouse occupy large areas, their breeding distribution is aggregated in relatively small areas. Areas representing 25 

percent of the known sage-grouse population were 3.9 percent of the species range, and 75 percent of sage-grouse were 

within 27 percent of the species range (Doherty et al. 2010b) (see Map 10). A system of reserves should protect peripheral 

and/or genetically distinct populations of species. Peripheral populations are often located at the ecological limits of a species 

range, where species are exposed to environmental circumstances that may later become prevalent in central populations, 

such as effects from climate change. Such testing of the periphery can act to stabilize the entire species in the face of 

environmental change (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). Genetically distinct populations increase genetic diversity in a species and 

expand the genetic background against which natural selection occurs (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). Reserves should be 

designated to protect the Columbia Basin and Bi-State distinct population segments of Greater Sage-grouse in Washington 

(Wisdom et al. 2005c) and eastern California/southwestern Nevada, respectively.

A system of reserves should prioritize preservation of areas have moderate or high potential to be maintained or restored in 

the face of climate change, cheatgrass incursion, unnatural fire and effects from historic and current land uses (see Wisdom et 

al. 2005c). In general, most areas with high potential to maintain or restore sagebrush communities are concentrated in 

Wyoming, eastern Idaho and northern Nevada. Areas with very low, low, or moderate potential to maintain or restore 

sagebrush are concentrated in Washington, Oregon, western Idaho and much of Nevada (Wisdom et al. 2005c). The recovery 

alternative includes criteria for designating ACECs (and SCAs) based on these guidelines and applies them to Utah and 

Wyoming to demonstrate how BLM should designate ACECs rangewide (see Maps 12 and 14).

326. The BLM is in charge of managing more than half of all remaining sagebrush habitat in the U.S.- up to 47 million acres. This 

clearly puts the burden of protection primarily on the BLM, especially as it is harder to enforce consistent protective 

management on private lands. Yet the BLM has a Western States regional herbicide use plan that proposes to use toxic 

herbicides harmful to sage grouse and accompanying chaining or removal of huge areas of sagebrush habitat- apparently to 

further benefit already heavily taxpayer-subsidized livestock permittees. The BLM can't claim to have an adequate sage grouse 

protection plan on the one hand while pursuing contradictory large scale projects detrimental to the sage grouse on the other. 

Such detrimental plans or projects must be cancelled or significantly re-designed so as not to be harmful to sage grouse and 

All Both rmc0039GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-484 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sagebrush-obligate species.

327. The minimum effective population for greater sage-grouse to protect the species from the longterm risk of extinction 

range-wide was found by the FWS to be as high as 5,000 mature birds, while the minimum effective population on a regional 

scale was found to be 500 breeding adults. See FWS Findings (footnote 3) at pages 13959 and 13985. The proposed EIS 

process must analyze the current population level in relationship to the minimum effective population. The current estimated 

population for greater sage-grouse is between 350,000 and 535,000 birds, which is 70 to 107 times greater than the minimum 

effective population of 5,000 birds. See FWS Findings (footnote 3) at page 13921 and Table 1 on page 18 herein. In fact, given 

the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% per year (see FWS Findings (footnote 3) at page 13922), 

it would take 300 to 330 years for the estimated current greater sage-grouse population to dwindle to the minimum effective 

population of 5,000 birds. Speculating about what might occur three centuries from now reaches well beyond the foreseeable 

future. The greater sage-grouse is not faced with imminent extinction or extinction in the foreseeable future, so is not legally 

qualified to be listed as either “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA.

All Both emc0251GB

328. Purpose

The Notice of Intent states “the BLM and FS propose to incorporate consistent objectives and conservation measures for the 

protection of greater sage-grouse and its habitat into relevant RMPs (Resource Management Plans) and LMPs (Land 

Management Plans) by September 2014 in order to avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act.” See NOI,1 

page 77009, underlined emphasis added. The Notice of Intent further states “(t)he purpose of the public scoping process is to

determine relevant issues relating to the conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat that will influence the scope 

of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EISs/Supplemental EISs.” See 

NOI,1 page 77010, underlined emphasis added.

Relevant Issues

Definitions of “Endangered” and “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act The ESA2 defines an “endangered species” 

as “any species which is in danger of extinction” and defines a “threatened species” as “any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the foreseeable future...”. Thus, under the ESA, a species can only be listed as “endangered” if 

it is in imminent danger of extinction, or as “threatened” if it is in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Determination of Population Level at which the Species would Risk Extinction

To meet the Notice of Intent’s stated purpose “to avoid a potential listing” of Greater Sage-Grouse (GSG) under the ESA, the 

BLM’s EIS process must address four issues related to population levels at which the species would be at imminent or 

long-term risk for extinction, as follows:

1] a determination of the minimum effective population (the number of birds needed to safeguard against the risk of 

extinction, either immediately or in the foreseeable future);

2] a determination of current regional and range-wide population levels in relation to the minimum effective population;

3] an analysis of historic population trends and the factors that drove those trends; and,

All Both emc0251GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-485

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

4] identification of the habitat area(s) that need to be properly managed to maintain the minimum effective population.

Minimum Effective Population of GSG: As High as 5,000 Range-Wide, 500 Regionally 

The FWS Findings3 found that a minimum effective population of up to 5,000 individuals will safeguard GSG from the 

long-term risk of extinction range-wide. The FWS Findings argue “a minimum effective population size must be 5,000 

individuals to maintain evolutionary minimal viable populations of wildlife (retention of sufficient genetic material to avoid 

effect of inbreeding depression or deleterious mutations).” See FWS Findings,3 page 13959, 2nd column, 1st paragraph, 

underlined emphasis added. Given the lack of any published estimates establishing a more specific minimum effective 

population for GSG, the FWS Findings conclude “the minimum viable population size necessary to sustain the evolutionary 

potential of a species... has been estimated as high as an adult population of 5,000 individuals (Traill et al. 2010, p. 32).” See 

FWS Findings,3 page 13985, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph, underlined emphasis added. The FWS Findings establish lower 

minimum effective populations associated with the risk of extirpation for discrete GSG communities at localized or regional 

scales. The FWS found that discrete sage-grouse populations “that fell below 50 breeding adults” were at risk for short-term 

extirpation, while populations “that fell below 500 breeding adults” were at risk for long-term extirpation. See FWS Findings,3 

page 13959. Thus, the minimum effective population for GSG to maintain sufficient genetic material to protect the species 

from the long-term risk of extinction was found by the FWS to be as high as 5,000 mature birds range-wide, while the 

minimum effective population to guard against extirpation on a regional scale was found to be 500 breeding adults.

329. The FWS Findings estimate that the current GSG population range-wide totals approximately 535,000 birds. Table 4 of the 

FWS Findings reports GSG population estimates by state/region based upon data from state wildlife agencies collected 

between 2002 and 2008. The estimates for all of the state/region populations combined total 535,542 GSG. See FWS 

Findings,3 Table 4, page 13921. The total estimated current GSG population of approximately 535,000 birds is 107 times 

greater than the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds needed to maintain sufficient genetic material to protect the 

species from the long-term risk of extinction.

The estimated populations for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in Table 4 of the FWS Findings were based upon hunting harvest 

data, assuming that 5% of the population is harvested. Elsewhere, the text in the FWS Findings assume that 10% of the 

population is harvested by hunting (page 13921)3, which would halve the estimated populations reported in Table 4 (also page 

13921) 3 for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, resulting in a total estimated current GSG population of over 350,000 birds 

(351,252, see Table 1 on page 18 herein). This is still 70 times greater than the minimum effective population. Based upon a 

current estimated population for GSG of 350,000 to 535,000 birds, 70 to 107 times greater than the minimum effective 

population of 5,000 birds, it is clear that GSG are far from being endangered with imminent extinction. Thus, GSG do not 

legally qualify for listing as “endangered” under the ESA.

Instead, the FWS Findings fret that the species may warrant listing because presumed trends of declining populations, if 

continued, may threaten the species with extinction sometime in the future. However, given the estimated contemporary 

All Both emc0251GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-486 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

(1985 to 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% per year (page 13922) 3, it would take 300 to 330 years for the estimated current GSG 

population to dwindle to the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds. Speculating what might occur three centuries from 

now stretches way beyond the foreseeable future. Thus, GSG are not in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future, so do 

not even qualify for listing as “threatened” under the ESA.

330. The FWS Findings claim that “(e)arly reports suggested the birds were abundant throughout their range” and estimate that 

historical populations ranged from 1.6 million to 16 million birds. See FWS Findings,3 pages 13920 and 13921. They then look 

forward in time and forecast that without regulatory intervention, a persistent downward trend will continue into the future, 

and sage-grouse populations will eventually reach levels near or below the minimum effective population, putting the species 

at risk for eventual extinction. They seem oblivious to the fact that at the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of 

decline of 1.4% annually (page 13922) 3 it would take 300 to 330 years for the estimated current GSG population to dwindle 

to the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds, a time frame that reaches way past the foreseeable future. 

The GSG population trend assumed by the FWS Findings is depicted graphically by the dashed grey trend line in Figure 1 on 

page 17 herein. The downward trend between the 1960s and today is assumed to be relatively steep due to rapid agricultural 

conversion of sagebrush habitat starting in the late 1960s. Except for a period of accelerated decline associated with 

commercial hunting in the 1930s, the downward trend in GSG populations is projected to extend back in time prior to the 

1960s at a somewhat slower rate of decline. Likewise, the downward trend in GSG populations is forecast to continue into the 

foreseeable future, at a slightly slower rate. This forecast leads to the conclusion that GSG populations will eventually reach 

levels near or below the minimum effective population (as high as 5,000 breeding adults), putting the species at risk for 

eventual extinction. See the dashed grey trend line depicted in Figure 1, pg. 17 herein. However, we know from documented 

sources that the assumed higher GSG population levels in the early and mid 1800s depicted by the dashed grey trend line are 

simply wrong, at least with respect to known GSG population levels at various points in the recorded history of the Great 

Basin. GSG within the Western Region, particularly the Great Basin, were scarce during the pre-settlement period, much less 

abundant than today. Ira Hansen, Nevada State Assemblyman, prepared a report (attached) regarding pre-settlement GSG 

populations throughout Nevada and the Great Basin based upon written accounts of early explorers in the region. Those early 

written accounts indicate that between about 1820 and 1850, GSG were uncommon, being observed only rarely by the

explorers, and were seldom included in the diets of the Native Americans due to their scarceness.

Similarly, in Part III of the King Exploration Report (King)4 based upon field-work from June 1867 to August 1869, 

Ornithologist Robert Ridgway reported “birds characteristic of the sage-brush are not numerous, either as to species or 

individuals, but several of them are peculiar to these districts;” including Centrocercus urophasianus (GSG). See King,4 page

324, underlined emphasis added. Regarding GSG, Ridgway reported “(a)lthough this large and well-known Grouse was met 

with throughout the sage-brush country between the Sierra Nevada and the Wahsatch (sic), we saw it so seldom that little 

was learned of its habits, particularly during the breeding-season.” See King,4 page 600, underlined emphasis added.

Lest anyone assume that sage-grouse were seldom seen during these explorations because the vegetative cover was 

All Both emc0251GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-487

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

significantly heavier than it is today, and thus allowed the birds to better hide themselves, consider Ridgway’s following 

characterization of the sagebrush communities under the section titled Birds of the sage-brush (page 323)4: The term 

"sage-brush" is the western vernacular for that shrubby growth which prevails over the valleys, mesas, and desert mountain 

slopes of the Great Basin to the utter exclusion of all other vegetation, except in isolated and extremely restricted places. One 

species, the "everlasting sagebrush" (Artemisia tridentata), composes by far the larger part of that growth, "covering valleys 

and foot-hills in broad stretches farther than the eye can reach, the growth never so dense as to seriously obstruct the way, 

but very uniform over large surfaces, very rarely reaching to the saddle-height of a mule, and ordinarily but half that altitude.”

331. The forecast that GSG populations will continue to significantly decline into the foreseeable future also appears to be wrong

based upon recent studies within the Great Basin. Nevada Department of Wildlife Studies report that GSG populations 

increased within the state from 2008 through 2010. A complete picture of Great Basin GSG numbers since written records 

began indicates:

1] pre-settlement populations were quite low, but well scattered;

2] populations dramatically increased between the late 1800s and early 1900s;

3] populations peaked in about 1930 and remained high through the 1960s

(perhaps interrupted by a moderate dip due to commercial hunting);

4] populations declined rapidly from the 1970s through about 2000; and,

5] populations declined more slowly from 2000 through 2010, and have even increased during the last part of this period in 

certain locations.

Figure 1 on page 17 herein displays these circumstances graphically. All available information regarding estimated Great Basin 

GSG numbers from the early 1800s to present is shown as triangular data points in Figure 1, connected by a smoothed black 

line. To determine the overall direction of change in Great Basin GSG populations over time, a linear trend line5 for the Great 

Basin data is depicted in Figure 1 as a solid grey line, which increased over time. This is the exact opposite of the assumed

downward trend predicted by the FWS Findings based upon the period between the 1960s and the present. It is unreasonable 

to base conclusions regarding long-term population trends only upon knowledge regarding population levels at two points in 

history, 1960 and today, when we have knowledge regarding sage-grouse populations at other times.

All Both emc0251GB

332. Consideration of all historic Great Basin population estimates for GSG indicates that pre-settlement populations were low, 

populations dramatically increased between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, populations rapidly declined from about 1970 to 

2007, and then increased slightly thereafter, as depicted in Figure 1 on page 17 herein. When interpreting graphic 

representations of data like that presented in Figure 1, it is helpful to develop biologically relevant explanations for the points 

where the population curve significantly changes slope or reverses direction. The population trend explanations suggested by 

the FWS Findings have the potential to explain only two of the deflections shown in Figure 1 on page 17 herein for Great Basin 

GSG populations. Commercial hunting could explain the population decline depicted in the 1930s, and agricultural 

conversions could explain the rapid population decline beginning in about 1970. However, agricultural conversions were 

taking place as early as the turn of the century, and Great Basin GSG populations were significantly increasing at that time, 

rather than decreasing. Thus, while agricultural conversions may help explain the rapid population decline beginning in about

All Both emc0251GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-488 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1970, they are counter-intuitive when trying to explain the rapid population increases that occurred at the turn of the century.

333. Indeed, human disturbances of all sorts, roads, railways, fences, reservoirs, towns, homesteads, farms, mines, etc. flourished in 

the early to mid 1900s, and so did the sage-grouse. The mere presence of human activity seems to have little biologically 

relevant connection to sage-grouse population trends. However, specific human activities appear to correlate positively with 

GSG population trends. Livestock grazing management, with its associated intensive development of meadows, hayfields, and 

surface water sources increased markedly in the Great Basin in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and GSG populations boomed. 

During this period, high livestock densities (both sheep and cattle) reduced fine wildfire fuel loads across the Great Basin, and 

wildfires were rare and small. High densities of livestock dung also supplied an abundance of insect activity, particularly in 

closely grazed meadows and riparian areas, and the close grazing stimulated succulent new herbaceous growth and increased 

the forb component in these meadows and riparian areas, thereby increasing the quantity and quality of the forage supply for 

sage-grouse. At the same time, concerted predator control was practiced. In fact, predator control was encouraged, 

subsidized, and implemented on a vast scale by the Federal and State governments. By the mid 1900s, Federal and State 

regulations were implemented and all of the grazing management practices discussed above were controlled and moderated. 

The GSG population boom moderated at about the same time. By the late 1960s, livestock numbers and grazing levels were 

significantly scaled back across the west, and predator control programs were largely curtailed. Fire fuel levels increased, and 

the incidence of large-scale wildfires rose exponentially. GSG population trends reversed and started to rapidly decline.

All Both emc0251GB

334. Thus, intensive livestock management which diminished the frequency and size of wildfires, and concerted predator control 

which greatly reduced GSG loses to these killers, are management actions in the Great Basin that seem to be highly relevant 

to the biology of the GSG and help explain the trajectory of their populations over time. As shown in Figure 1 on page 17 

herein, it is reasonable to assume that a return to effective management to increase livestock grazing levels, reduce fire fuel 

loads and wildfire impacts, and increase predator control would result in another significant upward trend in GSG populations. 

In contrast, proposed GSG conservation measures to provide heavier cover levels through further livestock grazing 

reductions, and the lack of conservation measures to address ever increasing predation levels, are a prescription to assure that 

GSG populations will ultimately decline. Heavier cover for GSG translates to higher fire fuel loads across the landscape, and

substantial fuel loads make large-scale wildfires inevitable in many sagebrush communities. Repeat burns increase the 

likelihood that plant communities will shift toward cheatgrass dominance, which in turn increases wildfire frequency, 

eliminating the ability of sagebrush communities to re-establish. Thus, conservation measures that intend to benefit GSG by 

providing them with more hiding cover will ultimately harm the species by converting significant swaths of existing habitat to 

annual grasslands that provide no habitat value for GSG. This will concentrate the remaining birds in an ever shrinking area,

making them more vulnerable to poorly controlled predator populations

All Both emc0251GB

335. Less than 1.5% of the current GSG breeding population needs to be conserved to support a minimum effective population as 

high as 5,000 birds. Because the species is heavily concentrated in high-quality portions of its occupied range (see Doherty6), 

less than 0.25% of the total acreage in the highest breeding density portions of the occupied range needs to be conserved to 

All Both emc0251GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-489

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

support the minimum effective population (see calculations in footnote 6). Likely, far more than 5,000 GSG, and more than 

0.25% of the species high quality breeding habitat, are located within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, 

National Parks, and National Conservation Areas. Thus, these nationally designated areas likely already support more GSG 

than the minimum effective population needed to safeguard the species from extinction. Further, these nationally designated 

areas are already managed under special regulatory mechanisms that in many instances mirror the proposed mechanisms that 

current sage-grouse planning strategies recommend for conservation of the species and its habitat. These nationally 

designated areas have the potential to protect a minimum effective population of GSG under the type of regulatory 

mechanisms that the FWS claims will provide them with sufficient protection from human disturbances and development. 

Thus, the EIS process needs to first analyze greater sage-grouse population levels and trends in these nationally designated 

areas to determine how many GSG they contain, and the extent to which their habitats are sufficient to sustain the minimum 

effective population of 5,000 birds under the regulatory mechanisms that are already in place. If analysis of these nationally 

designated areas confirms that they currently support more than 5,000 greater sage-grouse, and demonstrates that their 

populations have been maintained or have increased under the regulatory mechanisms already implemented, then there is no 

need to implement additional conservation measures anywhere else in the bird’s occupied range. In such case, the GSG does 

not need to be listed under the ESA because its existence and trend in these nationally designated areas alone is sufficient to 

safeguard it from extinction. In contrast, if analysis demonstrates that greater sage-grouse population trends in these nationally 

designated areas are similar to trends elsewhere in their currently occupied range, then the entire line of reasoning regarding 

the factors responsible for GSG population declines must be reevaluated. If GSG population declines have occurred in these 

nationally designated areas that received such recognition because of their expansive, wild, undisturbed characteristics, and

have been largely protected from human disturbance and development since their designation, then factors other than habitat 

loss, destruction, and fragmentation due to man’s activities must be driving the GSG population declines. Likewise, if greater 

sage-grouse populations have declined in these nationally designated areas despite the regulatory/policy mechanisms that 

constrain their use, all recommendations to implement similar regulatory restrictions across vast additional acreages of the 

GSG range need to be rejected entirely.

336. Relevance: Criteria 2: A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, sensitive or threatened 

species, or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity). The Greater Sage-Grouse is the largest North American grouse

and depends upon a variety of sage-steppe habitats during their lifecycle. In 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service found that 

the Sage-Grouse warranted listing under the Endangered Species Act in recognition of the myriad threats confronting 

sage-grouse populations across its range (Fed. Reg. 3/4/10). As a sagebrush obligate species, the Greater Sage-Grouse depends 

upon large, healthy connected stands of sagebrush for their survival and are very vulnerable to changes in habitat. Sagebrush

steppe habitats are considered among the most imperiled ecosystems in North America (Knick et al. 2003, p. 612). ACEC 

designation is an important tool to protect priority habitats for Sage-Grouse. This nominated ACEC encompasses all core 

habitats within the BLM Dillon Resource Area and will contribute to the conservation of Sage-Grouse in Management Zone 

IV. This ACEC contains ACEC Nomination, Greater Yellowstone Coalition & Montana Audubon , March 2012 approximately 

All BLM emc0248GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-490 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

fifty active and historic breeding leks as well as winter, nesting, and brood rearing habitats.

337. Criteria 3: A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant species; rare, 

endemic or relic plants or plant communities which are terrestrial, aquatic or riparian; or rare geological features). Sustainable 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations, and the habitats required to support them, can be considered representative of a natural 

process or system. Sage-grouse are considered an “umbrella” species of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem because of the 

mature intact endemic plant communities and vast landscapes needed to support them (Knick and Hanser 2011).

All BLM emc0248GB

338. The lands nominated for ACEC designation “have substantial significance and values,” and specifically meet criteria 1-3. 1. Has 

more than locally significant qualities: The lands included in the proposed ACEC represent a relatively large contiguous area

of high biological value for sage-grouse. These lands are largely un-developed and un-encumbered by valid existing leases (see 

enclosed map: “Beaverhead Headwaters/ Centennial Valley Sage Grouse Core Areas”). If managed for Sage-Grouse and the 

requisite plant communities needed to sustain Sage- Grouse through an ACEC designation, these lands could substantially 

contribute to the conservation of this sensitive and candidate species in Management Zone IV. 2. Has qualities or 

circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, endangered, threatened or vulnerable to adverse 

change: At least a portion of southwest Montana’s Sage-Grouse population is migratory, moving between separate breeding 

areas in Montana and wintering areas in eastern Idaho (MDFWP 2005, p. 25). This unusual characteristic makes this population 

particularly sensitive to activities that would lead to habitat fragmentation. Sources of habitat fragmentation which could be

managed through the special management attention of an ACEC include: energy exploitation and transmission; road building 

and season of access; ORV use; extra efforts to limit noxious weed invasions; properly designed wildfire defense plans; 

modification to fencing specifications and densities; and improved designs for water infrastructure. In addition, the relatively 

high elevations and cool temperatures of southwest Montana’s priority Sage-Grouse habitats may be considered irreplaceable 

in that they appear to provide refugia from widespread, episodic occurrence of West Nile virus (WNv) at present, and may 

continue to as climate change increases temperatures. Sage-Grouse appear to have no resistance to WNv, which has caused 

extreme mortality events in some Sage-Grouse populations at lower elevations and warmer habitats in southeast Montana, 

eastern Oregon, southwest Idaho and elsewhere. In contrast, there has never been a documented infection or mortality of 

Sage-Grouse from WNv in Beaverhead or Madison counties, which are encompassed by this ACEC nomination. Summer 

temperatures likely affect WNv viremia (Naugle et al. 2005). Braust (1991) suggested a mean daily temperature below 21 C 

degrees reduces autogeny in Culex tarsalis, the principle mosquito vector of this virus. 3. Has been recognized as warranting

protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA: The significant amount of 

attention paid to Greater Sage-Grouse research, monitoring, and conservation, as well as explicit statements by federal and 

state agencies, demonstrates that the species is a national priority. State and federal agencies have been working for over a 

decade to implement conservation strategies to maintain Sage-Grouse populations, as reflected in Montana’s Sage-Grouse 

Conservation and Management Plan and the BLM Dillon Area Resource Management Plan (BLM RMP 2006). In 2010, the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service found that listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse was warranted due to “the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address such 

All BLM emc0248GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-491

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

threats” (Fed. Reg. 3/4/10).

339. Considering the incredible impact of the EISon all stakeholders across the range of the sage-grouse, about one quarter of the 

United States, the following should first be implemented and publicized: 1. A clear statement, backed by fact, as to why the 

sage-grouse does or does not qualify forT & E classification. 2. How many birds are there? 3. At what count of birds does the 

sage-grouse qualify forT & E classification? 4. What is their population trend overall and by region or Population Management 

Unit? If populations in given areas are steady or increasing, that area does not need additional management protocols and 

should be excluded from additional regulation. I 5. lfthe trend is down, how long until the count of birds reaches the trigger 

value to qualify for T & E classification? 6. The science of the above estimates should be peer-reviewed by qualified scientists 

representing the stakeholders. 7. Too many people and endeavors over too much area will be affected for whim and emotion 

to control this issue. We need good science; show it.

All Both emc0250GB

340. I support development of new energy sources in the United States, including the oil and gas reserves in Wyoming and 

Montana. But, I think we need to come up with some type of development fees in exchange for development rights, that could 

be imposed on property owners selling or leasing their lands for energy development, and imposed on the energy companies 

themselves that profit from this development. The money collected from these fees could be used to purchase other land to 

be set aside in perpetuity as habitat for species such as the sage grouse. (Also, these fees could be used to mitigate 

groundwater pollution that appears to be a result of the fracking process). If imposition of these development fees would 

require listing the sage grouse as an endangered species, I would be in favor of that too. The bottom line here is, we need new 

energy sources, and we need businesses to profit to maintain the economy and create jobs, but we also need to protect the 

environment. In exchange for profit, business and land owners must be held responsible for the costs of mitigation for harm 

to the environment.

All Both emc0001GB

341. On reviewing the Form, the grouse population count data are very instructive. The count, in seven management zones across 

eleven states, incorporates data from 2002 through 2008. The Form notes new counts were conducted in 2010, but does not 

report those numbers. Trends are discussed for two pages, with no clear and hard summaries. Preliminary review of many of 

the referenced articles indicates they are local and do not extend to range-wide conclusions. The lack of standard data 

impedes everyone’s ability to diligently analyze both the data and the conclusions. If the tabulated numbers are to be accepted, 

approximately 535,000 sage grouse exist across the eleven states. Within the California/Nevada zone, the 2004 count is listed

as 88,000. Significantly, the sage grouse population greatly exceeds the threshold levels required for listing as either an 

endangered or threatened species. The USFWS has determined a minimum of 5,000 birds can genetically maintain the species 

(Barr, 2012).

All Both emc0274GB

342. Habitat Conversion for Agriculture The preliminary statement in the four pages devoted to this factor, declares that ten 

percent of historic sagebrush range has been converted to agricultural use since the onset of EuroAmerican settlement. Edge 

effects entail an additional effective encroachment on sage grouse habitat, but bear tempering by anecdotal evidence of 

All Both emc0247GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-492 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

significant sage grouse persistence within active farmland near Ely, Nevada (Carpenter, 2012). The benefit of the habitat edge 

is supported with recent studies and discussion indicating the sage grouse have been observed preferentially selecting ecology 

edges in order to provide cover on one hand and access to food and water on the other (Coates, 2012). Where and when 

edges can be a threat is in the anthropogenic provision of predation sites. That is further discussed in Section 2.8 below.

343. We propose that the sage grouse habitat occurring on NTTR be reclassified as Low Value Habitat/Transitional Range. All Both emc0280GB

344. Please remember these landscapes often provide essential habitat to multiple species-some of which require old-age 

sagebrush canopies and others requiring early seral conditions. A well managed landscape is managed not to maximize value 

for any one specie (whether cattle or sage grouse) but rather maximizes overall value by ‘optimizing’, or maintaining viable 

habitat for multiple species (including wildlife and livestock, Danvir et al 2005).

All Both emc0281GB

345. On page 13, second solid bullet, the report indicates that collisions with power lines "were an important source of mortality 

for sage-grouse in southeastern Idaho.." The EIS should define "important" and compare this collision-caused mortality to 

annual hunting mortality. In Nevada, the Nevada Department of Wildlife claims that hunting is not an important mortality 

factor. The number of sage-grouse killed annually by each of these causes needs to be disclosed in the EIS.

All Both emc0239GB

346. COMMENTS ON Interim conservation Measures and Policies for Preliminary Priority Habitat, No. 2012‐043 (IM) As the 

interim policy and program guidance in the IM: These comments are consistent with and applicable to the strategic suggestions

above for the proposed action. The IM recommends deferring authorizations in PGH, where appropriate, if authorizations 

could result in Greater Sage‐Grouse population loss in PPH. We feel that excessive emphasis has been placed on deferring 

authorizations, and inadequate emphasis has been placed on onsite and offsite mitigation, in both PGH and PPH, to improve 

the overall habitat.

All Both emc0254GB

347. COMMENTS ON Interim conservation Measures and Policies for Preliminary Priority Habitat, No. 2012‐043 (IM) As the 

interim policy and program guidance in the IM: These comments are consistent with and applicable to the strategic suggestions 

above for the proposed action. Vegetation and Wildfire Suppression and Management We agree with the proposed 

vegetation management plans contained in the IM.

All Both emc0254GB

348. We also recommend that BLM consider new studies entitled "Identifying and Prioritizing Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting and 

Brood-Rearing Habitat for Conservation in Human-Modified Landscapes.", by Dzialak, Olson, Harju, Webb, Mudd, 

Hayden-Wing, and Winstead; and "Landscape features and weather infiuence nest survival of a ground-nesting bird of 

conservation concern, the greater sage-grouse, in human-altered environments.', by Webb, Olson, Dzialak, Harju, Winstead, 

and Lockman on predation of sage grouse in the overall analysis. These studies have been subjected to formal peer review by 

highly-respected wildlife journals and should be utilized in the BLM's planning effort to address GSG. The analysis in the EISs 

or SEISs must consider all recent, peer-reviewed scientific information in the alternatives for each of the EISs and should not 

All BLM emc0246GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-493

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

rely solely upon the conservation measures outlined in the Report.

349. EI Paso is regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Pipe line and Hazardo us Materials Safety Admin 

istration (PHMSA) for the conveya nce of natural gas. As a result, safely regul ations stipulate that EII>aso maintain various 

safety faci lities (i.e. block va lves) and have access to our facilities on a regular basis. The spacing of these faci lities is mandated 

by the DOT and may on occasion fall within a mapped Pre liminary Priority Habitat (" I>PH") or Pre liminary General Habitat 

("PGH") sage-grouse area. Any new conse rvation measures must allow for the location of these f<lcil itics within habitat 

areas. In addition, some fac il ities such as compressor stations and meter stat ions have to be located at certain points along 

an existing or new right-of-way (•'ROW"). The locations of these fac ilities are, at limes, restricted due to engineering constra 

ints and safety issues. Any conservation measures should allow the placement of operations and maintenance fac ilities within

sage-grouse PPH and PGH habitat.

All Both emc0278GB

350. While routine maintenance activities can sometimes be scheduled to minimize impacts, emergency and other un scheduled 

activities cannot. The EIS needs to analyze routine pipeline maintenance activities wi thin PPH and PGH habitat and just as 

importantly, allow access into these areas to complete emergency and safety activities. For our facilities located outside of 

identified sage-grouse habitat, our operations staff may need to use exist ing roads thro ugh identified habitat to access these 

facilities. Any proposed conservatio n measures must address this issue.

All Both emc0278GB

351. Any new conservation measures should allow for va ryi ng degrees of impact within lhe PPH areas. The third bullet on Page 23 

of 74 of the NTT Conservation Measures document addresses this issue as it pertains to Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate 

. The conservation measure stales " ... Any development to be placed at the most distal part of the lease from Ihe lek, or, 

depending on lopography and other habitat aspects, in an area that is less demonstratably harmful to sagegrouse." While an 

absolute requirement that sage-grouse preservation should trump all other siting considerations is obviously not palatable, the 

concept of considering the distance and terrain between disturbance and the sage-grouse habitat to be protected is very 

appropriate. As the distance increases from a known breeding location or complex of locations, increased levels of 

disturbance should be allowed. For example, roads that intercept the edge of a PPH should be available for use during the 

breeding season. Impacts from this level of disturbance would be minimal and still allow for projects to move forward.

All Both emc0278GB

352. One of the initial goals of the conservation measu res is to "manage priorily sage-grouse habitat so that discrele anthropogenic 

disturbances cover less than 3 percent of the sage-grouse habitat" and to allow no addition disturbances in these areas until 

enough area has been restored to maintain the area under this threshold. This goal may be unrealistic in many areas due to 

preexisting disturbances. Further, if this disturbance occurs in areas that are not under the jurisdiction of the BLM, the 3 

percent threshold may never be reached since the BLM has no jurisdiction to manage such areas. This would essentially make 

these public lands unavailable for multiple-use as is mandated by BLM policy. In addition, the second bullet on page 7 of 74 

states the objective to "manage or resourse priorily areas so thaI at least 70 percent of the land cover provides adequate 

sagebrush habitat over the long term." This too may be an unrealistic goal since some areas did not historically support this 

All Both emc0278GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-494 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

level of sagebrush habitat.

353. Throughout the report, the conservation measures are applied to both priority sage-grouse habitat and general sage•grouse 

habitat. It has been assumed that these areas equate to those identified on maps provided on the website, however this 

information needs to be clearly identified in future documents. We would anticipated that these maps would change over time 

due to events that modify habitats, either positively or negatively, or as new information is received and new research is 

directed at sage•grouse. The BLM needs to identify a schedule for revis ions and provisions for how the modifications would 

be made. EI Paso would request that this be a public process that takes into account input from the state and local working 

groups, state wildlife agencies, industry, ranchers, mining and other affected stakeholders.

All Both emc0278GB

354. With respect to the factual basis of the concerns, the BLM is relying on a linear back-extrapolation to 1800 based only on 

post-1960 data. Back-extrapolation of data beyond measurement limits requires independent supporting evidence or theory. 

Such evidence or theory in this case, however, is completely lacking, and indeed contemporary accounts of explorers in the 

1800's suggest that sage grouse numbers were low before European colonization of the Great Basin. This discrepancy calls 

into question the underlying justification of the BLM argument that sage grouse numbers have greatly decreased 

post-colonization, and hence the entire rationale of the proposed BLM regulation.

All BLM emc0301GB

355. Relevant to this issue are also the legal definitions ofendangered and threatened; an endangered species must be in imminent 

danger of extinction and a threatened species must be in danger of extinction in the immediate future. According to the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the minimum effective sage grouse population necessary to protect the species from extinction is 

some 5,000 mature birds across its entire range, 500 breeding adults on a regional level. Fish and Wildlife Service numbers 

show a range-wide present population of some 200,000 birds, with declines of some 1.4% a year 1960 to 2000. Sage grouse are 

hence clearly not presently endangered, and, even assuming this trend line continued, would not become so for some 300 

years, which is not in the 'immediate future'. I therefore believe that proposing these regulations does not meet the legal 

requirements spelled out in the Endangered Species Act. The BLM, as an arm of government, has an obligation and a duty to 

act within the law. To propose regulations on the basis of a species being endangered or threatened when the Fish and Wildlife 

data show exactly the opposite is to act exactly counter to this obligation and duty.

All BLM emc0301GB

356. It is also clear from multiple studies and even BLil4..documents that many aspects of post-colonization habitat changes were 

highly beneficial to sage-grouse numbers

All BLM emc0301GB

357. As implied by the initiation of this planning process, if healthy populations of sage-grouse are to be retained, federal public 

lands must be managed to protect large expanses of sagebrush habitat. Federal agencies cannot rely upon private or state lands 

to secure habitat for sage-grouse, as state lands will continue to be largely managed for maximum return to the states, and in 

spite of some incentive programs for private land habitat preservation, private land owners ultimately tend to manage their 

land for profit, often to the detriment of sagebrush habitat. Thus, federal land managers must manage public lands in a manner 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-495

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

that protects sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

358. First and foremost, the BLM and Forest Service must follow the best available science for future sage-grouse management. If 

sage-grouse are to persist outside of small, relic populations, the agencies must ensure that consistent and enforceable 

restrictions are put on activities that harm sagebrush habitat, including but not limited to, conversion of sagebrush to crested 

wheatgrass, livestock management, off-highway vehicle use, oil, natural gas, and coal extraction, and prescribed burns. As 

noted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse, none of the 

state or federal regulations, plans, and strategies, alone or in aggregate, will adequately prevent the continued slide towards 

extinction of sage-grouse. The BLM and Forest Service must change the current weak management practices and make real 

and substantial changes on the ground.

All Both emc0276GB

359. The greater sage-grouse, the largest member of North American grouse species, depend on a variety of shrub-steppe habitats 

throughout their lifecycle. Prior to European settlement, estimates report up to 16,000,000 greater sage-grouse inhabiting the 

West, but since then multiple threats have imperiled the species and its habitat, leading to dramatic declines in the species’ 

population. It is now estimated that no more than about 500,000 sage-grouse remain, and just under 50% of its habitat has 

been entirely lost. Sagebrush is now considered one of the most imperiled ecosystems in North America. Sage-grouse are a 

sagebrush obligate species, meaning that they depend entirely on large, healthy and connected stands of sagebrush for survival. 

They use sagebrush for cover during breeding in the spring. Productive nesting areas are also typically characterized by 

sagebrush with an understory of native grasses and forbs. Both sagebrush canopy and grass cover are critical to reproductive 

success, providing necessary concealment of nests and young from potential predators. It is not surprising then that nest 

success averages drop an estimated 15% in disturbed sagebrush habitats, as compared to habitats where sagebrush has not 

been disturbed. Following hatching, brood-rearing habitat must provide adequate sagebrush canopy cover to conceal chicks 

while they forage on nearby forbs and insects essential to their nutritional health. In the summer, sage-grouse typically use 

sagebrush habitats as well as riparian areas, wet meadows and alfalfa fields, all of which provide forbs and insects, essential 

foods for the birds at this time of the year. Sometime in the fall, sage-grouse begin shifting their diet entirely to sagebrush, 

which they then depend on throughout the winter for food and cover. In sum, it is clear that sage-grouse must rely upon 

sagebrush year-round to survive. Sage-grouse are extremely vulnerable to changes in habitat because they generally exhibit 

strong site fidelity to seasonal habitats, including habitats for breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering areas, and thus 

they remain loyal to a particular area even when it is no longer of value to them. They rarely switch between habitats once 

they have been selected which dramatically limits their adaptability to habitat changes. Moreover, sage-grouse depend upon 

large areas of continuous sagebrush with healthy understories due to extensive seasonal and annual movements of the species, 

and thus disturbances seemingly far from a population may still lead to negative impacts due to habitat fragmentation. 

Additionally, restoration of disturbed areas of sage-grouse is very difficult. Often, alteration of vegetation, nutrient cycles, 

topsoil, and living soil crusts exceed recovery thresholds after a disturbance, making recovery nearly impossible to achieve.

Processes to restore sagebrush ecologically are relatively unknown, and thus restoration may not be the best means of 

protecting sage-grouse habitat. When restoration is proposed, it must be implemented on a landscape, watershed, or 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-496 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

eco-regional scale rather than individual, unconnected efforts in order to make a potentially useful impact. However, because 

restoration is difficult and little is known about its ecological impact, it follows that avoiding and limiting disturbance is the best 

way to protect sagebrush habitats.

360. Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats has been cited as a primary cause of the decline of sagegrouse populations because the 

species requires large expanses of contiguous sagebrush. More recently, several studies have documented negative effects of 

fragmentation as a result of oil and gas development and its associated infrastructure on lek persistence, lek attendance, winter 

habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival rate, and female nest site choice. “Avoidance of energy development at the

scale of entire oil and gas fields should not be considered a simple shift in habitat use but rather a reduction in the distribution 

of sage-grouse

All Both emc0276GB

361. The importance and impacts of grazing pressure, rest, and rotation on the condition of sagebrush landscapes and the capability 

of these sagebrush habitats to support sage-grouse are not fully understood, largely due to a lack of research and 

experimentation. Also, impacts to sage-grouse may be different depending on which season and stage of life is being 

considered: breeding, nesting, brood rearing, or wintering.

All Both emc0276GB

362. As has been noted in regard to several other impacts on sage-grouse, sage-grouse habitat reestablishment and recovery of 

population numbers in an area after mining disturbances have ceased is uncertain.

All Both emc0276GB

363. Number one priority is to be a good steward of public land. Sage brush habitat is the Most important aspect of the sage grouse. 

Even though the sage grouse have been declining for years everyone has ignored the problem.

All Both rmc0001RM

364. In our experience, well-designed reclamation of public lands impacted by mining can ultimately lead to higher value habitat than 

if the same lands were left unmanaged. We believe that this principle applies to sage-grouse habitat as well. For example, it is 

generally accepted that noxious invasive species like Bromus tectorum (cheat grass) have significantly degraded vast areas of 

former sage-grouse habitat. Conversely, pinyonjuniper succession can lead to conversion of prime sage-grouse habitat into 

comparatively low-value woodlands. During mine reclamation, Barrick routinely restores such low-value habitats into prime 

potential sage-grouse habitat. Thus, when coupled with appropriate reclamation requirements, mining activi ty on public lands 

can play an important role in restoring sage-grouse and other species to long-term viability.

All Both emc0277GB

365. • Relation to Nevada Department of Wildlife habitat categories: The agencies should explain how the definitions of PPH and 

PGH in the Technical Report and Instruction Memoranda compare or contrast to the Nevada Department of Wildlife 

(NDOW) habitat categories used to delineate preliminary priority and general habitat in Nevada (Preliminary Priority Habitat 

includes essential/irreplaceable and important habitats, and General Habitat includes habitat of moderate importance). Which 

set of definitions will guide final habitat designations in Nevada and elsewhere?

All Both emc0277GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-497

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

366. • Migration: The Technical Report provides that priority sagegrouse habitats should include "migration or connectivity 

corridors." Please explain why connectivity corridors are necessary when sage-grouse migration is completed by flight. 

Nonetheless, connectivity corridors are likely to exist when narrow strips of habitat link higher and lower elevation habitats. 

Such connectivity is generally broken by natural processes, such as encroachment by pinyon-juniper, not anthropogenic 

activities. What is the scientific basis for this designation? How will the agencies identify these corridors?

All Both emc0277GB

367. ii. Range of alternatives should not be more restrictive than an Endangered Species Act ("ESA") Listing The agencies' 

objective in launching the RMP revision process is to "conserve sage-grouse and its habitat and potentially avoid an ESA listing. 

,,21 While the prospect of a sage-grouse listing and its regulatory consequences may be daunting, the restrictive measures 

recommended by the National Technical Team may be even more so. Indeed, the ESA permits the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to at least consider each proposed action individually, taking into consideration the site-specific circumstances, species and 

habitat conditions, potential effects to the species, and potential mitigating actions. While "take" of listed species is prohibited 

under the ESA, there are opportunities for take permits. By contrast, some National Technical Team recommendations would 

put millions of acres of public lands off limits from mineral entry or arbitrarily cap disturbance regardless of sitespecific species 

occurrence and habitat conditions, or mitigation opportunities that might be offered by the project proponent. In deciding 

what conservation measures should be imposed to avoid a listing, the agencies must consider whether the measures proposed 

may cost more than the ESA listing it is attempting to avoid. The irony of the agencies' purpose to avoid a listing and the BLM 

National Technical Team's recommended conservation measures is highlighted by the Technical Team's proposal to withdraw 

from mineral entry priority sage-grouse habitat areas.22 The Technical Team also recommends a 3% surface disturbance cap 

in priority habitat.23 Such blanket prohibitions that admit no exceptions based on habitat conditions and quality, species 

occurrence, or mitigation that might be offered by the project applicant are at once inflexible and draconian, evidencing a 

singularity of purpose that directly contradicts the agencies' multiple-use mandates. By contrast, an ESA listing does not 

automatically put off limits all projects that might adversely affect the species or its critical habitat within its range. In fact, the 

ESA specifically provides processes to obtain "take" authorization for both private projects and those with a federal nexus. For 

private projects that might result in "take"-defined broadly to include any activity that would or would attempt to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a species, 50 C.F.R. § 17.3-an applicant can obtain an Incidental 

Take Permit under ESA Section 10 after preparing an approved Habitat Conservation Plan. 16 U.S.c. § 1539(a)(l)(B); 50 C.F.R. 

§ 17.22(b)(l)(iii). A Habitat Conservation Plan specifies the actions that will be taken by the project applicant to minimize and 

mitigate effects to the listed species. Measures can be as varied as avoiding Impacts by relocating project facilities, minimizing 

impacts through timing restrictions and buffer zones, rectifying impacts by restoration and re-vegetation, and compensating 

for impacts by habitat restoration or protection at an offsite location.24 The Fish and Wildlife Service can issue an incidental 

take permit if after considering the effects and committed mitigation measures, the taking will not appreciably reduce the likely 

survival or recovery ofthe species as a whole. 50 CF.R. § 17.22(b)(2). Similarly, when an agency such as BLM permits an 

activity that is likely to adversely affect a listed species, it must initiate Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to ensure that the proposed action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 50 C.F.R. § 402. 14(a). The 

Service issues a Biological Opinion to determine whether jeopardy will occur. /d. § 402.14(g). The Service may take into 

All Both emc0277GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-498 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

consideration any conservation measures or other agreements between the action agency and the project proponent, 

including commitments to mitigate and minimize impacts. See Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 956 

(9th Cir. 2003). Thus, in both the Section 10 and Section 7 context, there is no absolute prohibition on activities that might 

"take" species. Rather, project approval is based on whether, after applying the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, 

the action will appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival or recovery of the species, or result in jeopardy, respectively. 

The ESA permitting processes encourage cooperation between the Service and the applicant to find solutions that both allow 

the applicant's project to move forward while conserving the species. The mineral industry is familiar with ESA processes and 

has worked successfully with the Fish and Wildlife Service over several decades to ensure mining operations do not place 

listed species such as the Lahontan cutthroat trout in jeopardy. Whatever conservation measures the agencies ultimately 

implement in its various RMPs, they should encourage similar collaboration for species conservation and avoid industrystifling 

blanket prohibitions that fail to take into consideration individual project proposals and site-specific circumstances. Barrick 

encourages the agencies to consider, and incorporate in their management plan revisions, alternatives that provide flexibility 

to the agencies to work with industry toward effective conservation while permitting multiple uses of the public lands.

368. iv. Design features and mitigation measures BLM and the Forest Service should consider alternatives that incorporate design 

features and mitigation measures other than the measures in the Technical Report to reduce or avoid impacts to biological, 

physical, or socioeconomic resources. See BLM NEPA Handbook at 61; 40 C.F.R. § 1508.20 (NEPA regulation defining 

mitigation). Possible design features and mitigation measures include, but are not limited to: • Alternatives that recognizes 

sage-grouse habitat quality and protects sage-grouse habitat in proportion to the potential for sagegrouse conservation - i.e., 

less restrictions should apply in areas that are already disturbed or developed, and protection should focus on areas where 

conservation measures will have the greatest benefit for the species.

All Both emc0277GB

369. vi. Affected environment As discussed above, it is difficult to fully assess the possible effects of the proposed EISs because the 

agencies have not completed the Priority and General Habitat maps. See supra Section II. Further, the agencies have not 

provided a clear, uniform definition of Priority and General Habitat. Thus, we cannot independently analyze the locations of 

where the conservation measures will potentially apply and cannot provide a complete response to the agencies' requests for 

comments. In fact, the agencies have issued varying habitat definitions, adding to the confusion of the scope of the affected 

environment. For example, the BLM's Technical Report defines Priority and General Habitat as: Priority Habitat Areas "that 

have the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing sage-grouse populations. These areas would include breeding, 

late brood-rearing, winter concentration areas, and where known, migration or connectivity corridors.,,27 General Habitat 

Areas of "occupied (seasonal or year-round) habitat outside of priority habitat.,,28 On the other hand, the agencies' Nevada 

offices have adopted different habitat definitions based on the Nevada Department of Wildlife's categories: Priority Habitat 

Category 1 - Essential/Irreplaceable Habitat: Areas covering the lek itself and associated nesting habitat. Areas covering more 

mesic habitats used for nesting and brood raising. Category 2 -: Important Habitat: Suitable and diverse winter habitats and 

high quality brood rearing habitats.3o General Habitat Category 3 - Habitat of Moderate Importance: Areas that "are not 

meeting their full potential due to any number of factors, but serve some benefit to sage-grouse populations. These habitats 

All Both emc0277GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-499

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

can serve as nesting, brood rearing, winter or transitional habitat, but are marginal.,,31 As discussed above, the agencies 

should explain the designations and provide for on-the-ground confirmation to ensure accurate implementation of the 

conservation measures. The agencies should not leave the public, including affected industries, to guess which areas will be 

impacted by the proposed conservation measures.

370. Habitat fragmentation, associated in connection with many of the threats described above, is one of the most prevalent and 

most significant issues affecting sage-grouse populations. Habitat fragment is an associated impact and thus sometimes will be 

viewed as a direct, indirect, or cumulative effect in relation to other causal activities. Because sage-grouse require large 

expanses of habitat for all stages of life and for seasonal variations, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that maintaining 

habitat connectivity and sage-grouse population numbers are essential for sage-grouse persistence. Loss of connectivity leads 

to loss of population, loss of genetic diversity, and extirpation from stochastic events. Additionally, isolation of leks can lead to 

abandonment. Because sage-grouse require large expanses of habitat for all stages of life and for seasonal variations, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service concluded that maintaining habitat connectivity and sage-grouse population numbers are essential for 

sage-grouse persistence. Despite this conclusion, sagebrush habitat in the West is becoming fragmented due to urbanization, 

grazing, energy development, roads, fences, global climate change, water scarcity, power lines, and other infrastructure.

All Both emc0276GB

371. 2. All Standards in RMPs and Forest Plans Must be Based Upon the Best Available Science. All standards and directives 

implemented in these RMPs and Forest Plans must be based upon the best available science concerning sage-grouse, 

sage-grouse habitat, and how activities on public lands may impact sage-grouse and their habitat. Of relevance, NEPA requires 

that analysis of impacts must be “of high quality” and contain “[a]ccurate scientific analysis.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b). Likewise, 

FLPMA requires BLM to use an integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic and other sciences in developing 

RMPs that will direct land management activities. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(2). In finding that listing for sage-grouse is warranted 

under the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service noted its concern with the non-scientific nature of some of the current policies 

guiding activities in sage-grouse habitat. Because of the non-scientific nature of many of these policies and guidelines, it was not 

surprising that many of these guidelines proved insufficient to truly protect sage-grouse and their habitat. The agencies must 

gather the most current science on the issue and review it thoroughly before implementing standards. Throughout the 

process, as other relevant information becomes available, BLM and the Forest Service must also consult all new data to ensure

that the best available science is used to formulate appropriate and protective standards to support sage-grouse persistence.

All Both emc0276GB

372. 3. RMPs and Forest Plans Must Require Consistent and Scientifically-Based Monitoring Efforts and Include Detailed 

Information on Sage-Grouse Populations and Habitat. Effective management of sage-grouse and their habitats is dependent on 

accurate information on populations, demography, behavior, habitat quality, habitat distribution, and many other factors.15 

Long term population, habitat, and implementation monitoring must be required in all land management plans. In order to 

determine the impacts of public land activities and other potential threats to sage-grouse, the BLM and Forest Service must 

implement consistent and scientifically-based monitoring plans that will determine the health, range, and changes to 

sagegrouse populations and sagebrush habitat. Monitoring should be continuous, on-going, and a consistent approach should 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-500 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

be utilized across the range of the sage-grouse to allow for easy data comparisons. Additionally, monitoring and population 

surveys should be conducted before, during, and after completion of all site-specific projects and activities in order to 

determine the effects from all projects on sage-grouse. To this end, individual projects approved under amended plans must 

include appropriate funding levels for monitoring. Surveys should include a numerical count of sage-grouse and a count of leks 

and male sagegrouse numbers near each documented lek. The responsible federal or state agency should include all relevant 

information to help inform future decision-makers, including the distance of documented leks and birds from the project. 

Monitoring should not be limited to aerial surveys but should also include ground-truthing to ensure collection of the most 

accurate data possible. The agencies furthermore should post a user-friendly database available to the public on the internet 

with all of the relevant monitoring information documented as specified above. This will allow the agencies to easily share the 

information with the public while simultaneously allowing the agencies to gauge the anticipated effects of future projects based 

on past monitoring and survey results following similar projects. The BLM and Forest Service should require review of this 

information prior to making decisions when relevant monitoring or survey information—that is data relevant to the landscape 

involved and/or the type of activity/project involved—is available.

373. 5. The BLM and Forest Service Should Determine and the RMPs and Forest Plans Should Identify Priority Sage-grouse Habitat, 

Occupied Sage-grouse Habitat, and Unoccupied but Suitable Sage-grouse Habitat. The BLM and Forest Service must collect 

pertinent information in order to identify within each RMP and Forest Plan land planning areas priority sage-grouse habitat, 

occupied sage-grouse habitat, and unoccupied but suitable sage-grouse habitat. This determination must be based upon the 

best available science and up-to-date surveying and monitoring results. As the National Technical Team suggests, priority 

habitats should include breeding, late brood-rearing, winter concentrations areas, and migration or connectivity corridors.

All Both emc0276GB

374. The agencies should also prohibit new infrastructure that may harm sage-grouse in priority sagegrouse habitat. This would 

include fences, power lines, pipelines, roads, motorized trails, communication towers, water development, or any other 

infrastructure that could potentially harm sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. The biggest concern with infrastructure is that 

it can substantially fragment habitat that sage-grouse require for different stages of life and different seasons of the year. This 

is somewhat supported by the Technical Team Report, which suggests that “[l]arge-scale disturbances that impact sage grouse 

distribution and abundance at any level will not be permitted within priority areas (subject to valid existing rights),” and that 

“energy development and other large scale disturbances” should be excluded from priority habitats.25 The Technical Team 

Report, however, allows smaller scale proposals to impact 3% of a priority area.26 This allowance does not adequately 

address fragmentation that may result from these small scale proposals.27 As the Fish and Wildlife Service and other experts 

have noted, without large expanses of connected sagebrush habitat, sage-grouse are unlikely to persist. Additionally, 

infrastructure can cause impacts through direct conversion of habitat, increased human presence, an increase in predator 

threats, and direct mortality through collisions with infrastructure or collisions from cars and off-road vehicles. See infra 

Sections III.E & J for more information on the threats associated with infrastructure.

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-501

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

375. Permitted livestock levels have dropped dramatically on BLM and FS lands from 1940 to today. Greater sage-grouse numbers 

have mirrored that decline. The agencies should not overlook this statistic.

All Both emc0284GB

376. Historically the numbers of sage grouse in this area were nowhere near current populations. Records kept by early travelers 

verify this fact. Only when numbers go below historic levels should the bird be considered endangered.

All Both emc0292GB

377. Plan for sage-grouse recovery: The goal should be to maintain AND increase current sage-grouse populations and distribution 

by conserving, enhancing and restoring the sagebrush ecosystem. Populations must be restored to levels that can survive local

extirpation events.

All Both emc0297GB

378. Require adequate protections for "general habitat": General sage-grouse habitat is defined as occupied seasonal or year-round 

habitat outside of priority habitat. The technical team recognizes the importance of protecting and restoring general habitat. 

However, improved guidelines must be developed to ensure application of adequate, science based protections for general 

habitat. This is essential in order to maintain connectivity and sustain and increase sage-grouse populations into the future.

All Both emc0297GB

379. Place a disturbance cap in all priority sage grouse habitat areas. All Both emc0297GB

380. Under the Recreation section (page 12) indicates that many recreation activities are "benign uses in sagebrush habitats. 

However, excessive use, such as repeated disturbance to leks for viewing that disrupts sage-grouse breeding activities can 

have significant negative effects (75 FR 13910)." However, Nevada Department of Wildlife routindy live-traps sage-grouse on 

the leks, and somehow this does not seem to be disruptive of breeding activities. We would like to see this live-trapping 

activity analyzed in the EIS:

All Both emc0322GB

381. Evaluate sage grouse habitat for its value to sage grouse. Focus protection efforts on wet meadows and other critical sage 

grouse habitats.

All Both emc0305GB

382. Develop habitat management plans that emphasize protection of existing core habitat areas with high density sage and 

increases habitat connectivity for sage grouse movement through their full life cycle and between populations to foster genetic 

diversity. Consider genetics as well as population connectivity.

All Both emc0305GB

383. Institute a monitoring program and outline the monitoring protocol to be used for recovering the species range-wide, with the 

intent to continue the plan beyond recovery in order to take into account unforeseen future threats.

All Both emc0305GB

384. Analyze cumulative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation as well as species movements and behaviors resulting from 

recreation (off-road vehicle use, viewing, shooting, camping, hunting, etc.), road-building, increased traffic, and placement of 

well pads for gas drilling and develop plans to reduce the impacts to sage grouse.

All Both emc0305GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-502 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

385. The N3 Grazing Board strongly questions the need and even the legality of incorporating additional sage grouse conservation 

measures into land use plans to "avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act". The 5000 mature bird minimum 

population determined by the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the species from the long term risk of extinction is 

exceeded many times in the Greater Sage Grouse population. It is a well documented fact that sage grouse populations were 

very limited in the nineteenth century when explorers and emigrants first traveled the American West.

All Both emc0307GB

386. The BLM should rely on the best available science concerning sage-grouse behavior, habitat needs, and conservation 

best-practices when developing land use guidelines.

All BLM emc0308GB

387. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should identify year-round habitat requirements for sage-grouse by state or region, 

and not solely focus on breeding habitat, since many populations are migratory.

All BLM emc0308GB

388. Data from the western states indicates greater sage-grouse populations have stabilized or increased. As an example, data from 

a Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) presentation indicates the greater sage-grouse population in Nevada has been 

increasing in the last three years. According to NDOW, the 2010 fall population estimate increased about 18% compared to 

the 2009 estimate, and the population has been increasing since 2008. Clearly, BLM’s and NDOW’s existing land 

management/sage-grouse conservation measures - including those outlined in Governor Guinn’s Sage Grouse Conservation 

Plan, are having demonstrated success in restoring sage-grouse habitat, resulting in the observed population increase. 

Therefore, the National Technical Team’s proposed draconian land use restrictions are not warranted in light of the 

increasing population trend and the apparent success of the conservation measures currently in place. The No Action 

Alternative must consider and analyze these and other state and local land management/sage-grouse conservation measures 

and determine whether such locally managed efforts are best suited to preserve and protect the sage-grouse and its habitat.

All Both emc0321GB

389. The BLM and FS should prepare a comprehensive inventory of sage-grouse habitat and existing sagegrouse populations using 

the most current data available. The agencies should make certain that the full suite of habitat requirements is incorporated

into this habitat inventory. At the largest scale, the habitat inventory should identify and map all lands currently used by greater 

sage-grouse at all life stages and throughout the year, including transitional habitats. The population inventory should verify the 

number of remaining sage-grouse and determine sustainable population levels, and should identify areas occupied by high 

concentrations of sage-grouse, which will assist the agencies in delineating high-value habitats. The BLM and FS should build 

upon existing state-level inventory and mapping data. Many state mapping efforts are works-in-progress and will require the 

agencies to work collaboratively with state agencies. For example, many mapping models focus breeding habitat to delineate 

core habitat because lek data is more available than nesting or corridor information. Lek data is collected through sampling 

that is prone to variability, and only identifies habitat use during a short period of the year. Furthermore, there is great need 

for more research to adequately identify and delineate transitional habitats. Regional maps should include the most recent 

information from local working groups, telemetry studies, and state agency modeling of seasonal habitat and movement 

corridors. Any mapping method must be supported by the current best available science, combined with scientifically 

All Both emc0329GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-503

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

defensible research and methods to estimate population density. We encourage BLM's continued involvement in order to 

expedite the process to complete work on mapping and other conservation tools, while ensuring that maps are scientifically 

defensible. The sage-grouse habitat inventory should include at least two categories of habitat: priority habitat and general 

habitat. The BLM• fs National Technical Team (NTT) has defined priority habitat as • gareas thathave the highest conservation 

value to maintaining or increasing sage• ]grouse populations.• h4 Thesepriority areas should include breeding, late 

brood• ]rearing, winter concentration areas, and migration or connectivity corridors.5 The remaining sage-grouse habitat, or 

general sage-grouse habitat, includes occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat. Priority habitat 

should be set-aside from development or protected via stringent management protections that meet the goal of maintaining 

and enhancing populations in these areas. These protected areas should be large enough to stabilize populations in the short 

term and enhance populations over the long term.6 Priority habitat should also include small or isolated populations, such as

those along the periphery of the greater sage-grouse’s range.

390. Sage-grouse conservation guidance from BLM should reflect the most current science on sage-grouse transitional habitat, such 

as migration or connectivity corridors necessary for sage-grouse to travel through the landscape to vital seasonal habitat. 

Sage-grouse movement patterns are poorly understood,7 and, as such, transitional habitat is not adequately recognized and 

incorporated into current sagegrouse conservation and management. For instance, the interim guidance released by BLM in 

December 20118 does little to provide guidelines for the preservation or inventory of important sagegrouse transition habitat 

and many state-level planning efforts have not adequately incorporated transitional habitat into conservation efforts. But it is 

clear that migration corridors and habitat connectivity (including movement across jurisdictional boundaries) will play an 

essential role in successful conservation strategies. The agencies should create management policies that will protect areas 

that may likely serve as transitional habitat due to the proximity of these areas to highly productive habitat and lek sites.

All Both emc0329GB

391. We recommend the following criteria be used to identify and designate priority habitats for the purpose of conserving greater

sage-grouse. Areas of high biological value, with respect to meeting all seasonal habitat needs, should be identified and 

considered for priority habitat designation. To inform this effort, the agencies should refer to on-going state efforts to identify 

important sage-grouse habitat (such as Wyoming’s Core Areas approach), as well as data provided in the BLM report Mapping 

breeding densities of greater sage-grouse: A tool for range-wide conservation planning.10 Prioritize habitat conservation in 

relatively large contiguous areas that are: 1) within areas of high biological value; 2) currently undeveloped; and 3) 

unencumbered by valid existing rights, and/or have low potential for development (e.g., low wind or oil and gas potential).11

These areas, where high biological value intersects with low energy development potential, are low conflict area sage-grouse 

habitat conservation. Consider priority habitat designation in high biological value areas that, although encumbered by valid 

existing rights, are not yet developed. This may be particularly feasible where actual development potential is low despite the 

existence of valid existing rights (e.g., due to speculative leasing in areas of low energy potential). It may also be feasible in areas 

where other constraints (e.g., lack of infrastructure, other resource conflicts) will make development relatively difficult and 

costly. Management in such areas could include aggressive pursuit of available tools to increase the amount of protected 

habitat, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, 

All Both emc0329GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-504 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts. Including these areas as priority habitats is vital because 44% of areas with 

high biological value are at risk for energy development, and one-third of the 25% core areas have been leased for oil and gas 

development.12 Consider prioritizing areas that meet the previous criteria and are near high biological value areas that are 

likely to be developed in order to promote resilience of populations disturbed by development. Consider including relatively 

large contiguous areas of lower biological value areas that currently are undeveloped, are unencumbered by valid existing 

rights, or have low potential for development. This may be important when such areas increase the size and continuity of the 

areas described above, or where there are limited areas that meet the previous criteria.13 Once the above areas have been 

mapped, work to maximize the spatial continuity and size of designated priority habitats. BLM should consider for 

designation areas that have already been proposed for sage-grouse conservation and are under consideration as part of RMP 

revision.14

392. • IM 2012-043 o Designation of Preliminary Priority or Preliminary General Habitat Areas The IM defines preliminary 

priority habitat areas as those that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable

greater sage grouse populations, and include breeding, late brood-rearing and winter concentration areas. While the 1M 

states that these areas have been identified by BlM in coordination with state wildlife agencies, the public has had little or no 

input into the process of designating such areas. Furthermore, accurate maps that identify key habitat areas have not been 

provided. The January 10, 2012 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies habitat map, delineating these designated 

habitat areas, was used during the IM roll-out meetings at BlM offices. However, subsequent discussions with state and field 

office staff have determined that those delineations are already being significantly modified by state wildlife agencies. It is 

difficult for us to determine potential impacts or issues appropriate for scoping when the extent of the area is unknown. BlM 

must provide better maps identifying the designations as well as ensuring that designations are based on clear criteria and 

sound biological data. Many efforts to identify sage grouse habitat have incorporated "broad brush" analyses that do not 

appear to include adequate site specific field verification. For example, the mere presence of intact sagebrush habitat alone is 

not a sufficient indication of sage grouse habitat. Moreover, historic range is not an appropriate measure for identifying current 

sage grouse habitat or distribution. Some of the area currently mapped by the Nevada Department of Wildlife is occupied by 

cheatgrass and other non-native invasive annual species, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and salt desert shrub vegetation. These 

areas do not provide suitable sage grouse habitat, and thus do not warrant habitat designation. Accordingly, it is essential that 

any sage grouse habitat designations be based on clear criteria and sound biological data. Broad, over-inclusive geographic 

designations are inappropriate and may have substantial adverse effects on multiple use activities on federal lands while 

providing no benefits to the species. BlM should ensure that project proponents have an opportunity to confirm the habitat 

designations based on site specific information at the time specific actions or projects are proposed. If site specific information 

(Le. the best scientific information available) demonstrates that previously designated habitat does not meet the criteria for 

general or priority habitat, then adjustments to those habitat boundaries and/or designations are appropriate and must be 

made by BlM without the need for a formal lMP or RMP amendment.

All Both emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-505

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

393. Sage-grouse occur on a complex sagebrush dominated landscape with tremendous variability locally and range wide. It is 

ecologically impossible to regulate for improved sage-grouse performance with a “one-size-fits-all” set of regulatory 

measures. For the National Sage-Grouse Strategy to be successful, it is essential that it allow for regional and site-specific 

approaches to conserving sage-grouse and habitat, incorporating expertise of local landusers and experts such as ranchers and 

locally knowledgeable range scientists.

All Both emc0341GB

394. The environmental impact statement (EIS) must acknowledge and address the scientific controversies regarding the habitat for 

the sage grouse, estimates of current numbers and changes in populations, impacts of other uses on sage grouse numbers, as 

well as historical range, current range, and best mitigation measures. The Technical Team Report is written in absolutes, a 

profound error given both the lack of data, the wide range of lands affected, and the apparent failure of BLM to consider 

conflicting data and research.

All Both emc0371GB

395. As documented in the analysis done by CESAR, the USFWS 12-Month finding failed to meet Information Quality Act criteria. 

CESAR at pp. 3-7 (documenting how USFWS relied heavily on a publication prepared by the same researchers and funded by 

USFWS but these factors were never disclosed). There was no disclosure of funding, any review was of the same group 

reviewing each other’s work, and there were documented data deficiencies in the USFWS work. BLM has carried forward 

these deficiencies in IM 2012-44 and the Technical Team Report. Id. In addition, USFWS and Technical Team Report omit 

other research that contradicts the conclusions. BLM has a legal obligation to conform to the IQA even if USFWS did not. This 

will require consideration of the contrary data and research, actual assessment of the data deficiencies and mathematical 

errors. If the analysis cannot be duplicated or checked, then it should be discarded or accorded little or no weight. In 2004 and 

again in 2010, USFWS received substantial documentation that its estimates of historic sage grouse population estimates were 

in error. Ex. 1A pp. 1-4. USFWS never acknowledged the data contradicting the premise that sage grouse were plentiful 

throughout the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin states. As explained in the CESAR analysis, the USFWS work does not 

conform to information quality standards and should be re-evaluated in light of these and other comments.

All Both emc0371GB

396. The attention on the sage grouse and its allegedly dwindling populations coincided with the spread of West Nile Virus into 

Wyoming. It was first documented in 1999 and wellestablished by 2002. Invasion Biology Introduced Species Summary Project 

- West Nile ... http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp.... Most avian deaths are unreported 

because the remains are eaten by scavengers. It is, thus, impossible to determine the number of sage grouse affected by West 

Nile Virus. But given the virtual elimination of all song birds for the initial years when West Nile Virus infested urban areas and 

the number of human infections, it is reasonable to assume that West Nile Virus exacted a similar toll on sage grouse. Ex. 1 p. 

3. Western Wyoming also suffered a severe drought during the same time frame which reduced insects necessary to feed the 

brood during the nest rearing phase. The combined impacts of disease and drought depressed bird numbers during the same 

time period and it is likely that other estimates, which attribute bird population declines to land uses err by omitting the 

cumulative effects of predation, disease and drought.

All BLM emc0371GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-506 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

397. A. Premise of Historic Range As shown in the attached comments, the premise of sage grouse having lost most or all of its 

historic habitat is deeply flawed. Ex. 1, pp. 1-2; Ex. 1A pp. 1-4; see also CESAR at pp. 8-12. The assumption ignores recorded 

history, soils, and climate. The USFWS lacks any data for the historical range described in the 2010 finding and it grossly 

overstates original sage grouse populations and range. Id. BLM has a legal obligation to use actual data and records, not just 

take for granted the unsupported hyperbole found in the USFWS finding

All BLM emc0371GB

398. 3% Surface Disturbance Limit There is no data to support the 3% limit used in the Technical Team Report for the surface 

disturbance ceiling in priority habitat. Technical Team Report at pp. 7-9. Its application is made more problematic in light of 

DOI’s efforts to push through its green energy projects that will quickly use up the 3% disturbance ceiling especially when 

added to existing roads, projects and permits. The 3% surface disturbance limit is also infeasible to achieve and has been 

selected without any thought to whether it can actually be implemented. In many areas, current roads and rights-of-way will 

equal the 3% without taking into consideration valid rights. This occurred in Wyoming when the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) adopted the surface disturbance limit in 2009. It was significantly revised once it was apparent that it 

could not be implemented without violating land rights and valid rights.

All BLM emc0371GB

399. Identify Research Needs and Pursue Them Land management changes should not occur without important research issues 

being addressed. For example, much of the consternation focuses on lek absence in the middle of drilling fields. But there is no 

data regarding whether the birds died or merely relocated. The failure to discover whether the sage grouse relocated is a huge 

gap in the knowledge base. A related question is sage grouse use of reclaimed habitat. How does that differ from sage grouse 

use of other habitat that has been the subject of vegetation improvement projects? Do sage grouse return to a well site or field 

once traffic and activity levels die down? Certainly other wildlife return to the fields once activity levels drop off.

All BLM emc0371GB

400. Populations Do Not Warrant Listing The minimum effective population for GSG, to protect the species from the long-term 

risk of extinction range-wide, has been determined by the FWS to be 5,000 mature birds, while the minimum effective 

population on a regional scale has been determined to be 500 breeding adults. The proposed EIS process must analyze the 

current population level in relationship to the minimum effective population. The current estimated population for GSG is 

between 350,000 and 535,000 birds, which is 70 to 107 times greater than the "minimum effective population" of 5,000 birds. 

In fact, given the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% per year, it would take about 300 years for 

the estimated current GSG population to dwindle to the minimum effective population of 5,000 birds. Clearly, the GSG is not 

endangered with imminent extinction, and it is unreasonable to conclude that the species is threatened with extinction in the 

foreseeable future, so there is no reason to list the GSG as “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. There is ample GSG 

habitat within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and National Conservation Areas to 

support the minimum effective population of 5,000 breeding adults needed to safeguard the species against extinction. These 

nationally designated areas are already managed under special regulatory mechanisms that in many instances mirror the 

proposed mechanisms that current sage-grouse planning strategies recommend for conservation of the species and its habitat. 

All BLM emc0381GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-507

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Thus, the proposed EIS process must analyze GSG population levels and trends in these nationally designated areas.

401. Conservation Plans Should Focus on Methods Shown to Work If analysis demonstrates that GSG populations have declined 

in nationally designated areas, the management of these areas should be analyzed and the conservation plans called into 

question. If GSG population declines have occurred in these nationally designated areas with expansive, wild, undisturbed 

characteristics, then factors other than habitat loss, destruction, and fragmentation due to human activities must be driving the 

GSG population declines. If GSG populations have declined in these nationally designated areas despite the regulatory 

mechanisms that constrain their use, plans are flawed that would implement similar regulatory restrictions across vast 

additional acreages of the GSG range. Instead the BLM and USFS should consider implementation of management practices 

that were in place when GSG populations dramatically increased from the mid 1800s to early 1900s

All Both emc0381GB

402. The default position must not be that conservation of sage-grouse is the highest priority land use in priority habitats at the 

expense of all other land uses. Cooperating agencies and local sage-grouse working groups must have an opportunity to 

review and comment on such habitat designations and the BLM must consider local and state land use plans and policies before 

establishing priority habitat. Habitat areas should not be designated by outsiders with a "broad brush," but should be based on 

local knowledge and limited to lands actually being used by sustainable sage-grouse populations. We look forward to an 

opportunity to review the proposed habitat mapping.

All Both emc0376GB

403. Sage-grouse mortality via hunting, predation and disease must be analyzed in the plan amendment process in spite of the failure 

of the national technical report to address these issues.

All Both emc0376GB

404. Sage-grouse mortality via hunting, predation and disease must be analyzed in the plan amendment process in spite of the failure 

of the national technical report to address these issues.

All Both emc0376GB

405. Population augmentation is a wildlife management tool that should be considered for sage-grouse in local areas where the 

need exists.

All Both emc0376GB

406. We also find it troubling that the strategy employed for the planning process is to use a different set of classification "Core 

Habitat" for something that won't be used in Nevada. This offers a challenge in being able to address concerns for extremely 

important designations without the ability to know how these habitats will be defined in a context based on current rangeland

science. Once the designations have been established and definitions assigned, we would like to see spelled out in the land use 

plans the processes to be used to delineate that the habitat types actually exist in the areas identified. Further, after 

ground-proof validation has been conducted there needs to be process for removing those areas from the designation where 

the "preliminary" conditions are shown to not be actual conditions.

All Both emc0383GB

407. It cannot be denied that with consideration of historic Great Basin population estimates for GSG indicates that pre-settlement 

populations were low. It can also not be refuted that these populations increased dramatically between mid-1800s through the 

All Both emc0383GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-508 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

mid-1990s. There has also been a documented decline in the population from the mid-1990s through the early-2000s. 

However, recent data from the early-2000s through today have shown that populations of GSG in most western states has 

plateaued and even increased in some areas. There are many correlative factors that have been attributed to these GSG 

population patterns. However, it cannot be disproven that the highest documented populations of GSG occurred when 

ranching operations were at their peak. We join with others is our strong request that the federal and state agencies strongly 

consider the link between vibrant and active ranching operations and strong GSG populations and then employ methods to 

support and enhance grazing, predator control, decadent sagebrush thinning, and pinyon-juniper woodland thinning. This 

process should focus on a federal rule that would mandate predator control including strong control of predating ravens. If 

BLM, FWS, and wildlife agencies wish to pursue the aggressive protectionist management scheme, then the low, 

pre-settlement populations of GSG are the maximum that the BLM and other agencies can expect. Further, the FWS has 

determined that a minimum effective population of 5,000 will safeguard the GSG from extinction. It is estimated that the 

current population of GSG is between 350,000 and 535,000. Coupled with the data that shows the current populations of 

GSG range wide are stable, it is disingenuous to consider that GSG are in actuality endangered, let alone, threatened.

408. In addition to the issues listed in the accompanying informationJ I encourage the evaluation4f1h,s of the following in all analyses 

of the environmental impacts of actions on federal lands:,An evaluation of the cumulative impacts to sage grouse of all actions 

in a particular area. As an example, impacts from a single activity may not be enough to reduce sage grouse productivity, but

the total impact from several activities conducted in an area may push the SGt- birds towards extirpation from the area

All Both emc00338GB

409. In addition to the issues listed in the accompanying informationJ I encourage the evaluation4f1h,s of the following in all analyses 

of the environmental impacts of actions on federal lands:, Ensure that there is habitat for all populations of the sage grouse. 

This ensure genetic diversity which is critical to long term survival of all species

All Both emc0338GN

410. In addition to the issues listed in the accompanying informationJ I encourage the evaluation4f1h,s of the following in all analyses 

of the environmental impacts of actions on federal lands. Consider the impacts of the infrasturcture associated with 

development.Include analysis of the impacts of fencing, roads, trails, powerlines, etc on sage grouse. Also look at the 

cumulative impacts of all infrastructure in an area.

All Both emc0338GB

411. The BLM Notice of Intent alleges that the purpose of the SEIS and related land use plans is to "avoid a potential listing" under 

the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") by the Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"). However, the determination of whether a 

species meets the ESA requirements for listing lies with the FWS, rather than the BLM. According to the FWS, the minimum 

effective population for Sage Grouse to guard against the risk of extinction is 5,000 birds (12-Month Findings, pgs. 13959 and 

13985). The current estimated population is between 350,000 and 535,000 birds (12-Month Findings, pg. 13921), which is 70 

to 107 times greater than the minimum effective population. Thus, according to the Western Range Service, given the 

estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of Sage Grouse decline of 1.4% per year (12-Month Findings, pg 13922), it would 

take 300 to 330 years for the current Grouse population to dwindle to the minimum effective population of 5,000. The BLM 

should request agreement or concurrence from the FWS regarding its intention relative to these population numbers. This is 

especially important given that the BLM has no independent jurisdiction over the Sage Grouse listing.

All Both emc0342GB

412. The continuation of existing management and conservation measures and existing regulatory policies including the directives All Both rmc0029RM, 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-509

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in BLM Manual 6840 "Special Status Species Management." define the status quo and the No Action Alternative. In the case of 

sage-grouse habitat conservation, the data from Nevada suggest that BLM's current policies are achieving significant 

sage-grouse habitat conservation and enhancement. For example, data presented by the Nevada Department of Conservation 

at Governor Sandoval's January 18th Stakeholder Update Meeting showed that the fall estimated population has been 

increasing since 2007, suggesting that the existing conservation measures are successfully improving sage grouse habitat.

rmc0060GB

413. The IMs repeatedly reference monitoring activities but provide little information about what specific monitoring methods will

be used or what specifically will be monitored. We ask that the BLM/FS work with these LWGs to identify and implement 

locally accepted sage-grouse habitat and population assessment and monitoring methods that can be used to document the 

effects of management actions of local population trends.

All Both rmc0066GB

414. We request that LWG members are kept informed through LWG meeting communications with BLM/FS throughout the 

NEPA process to ensure all aspects ofthe local sage-grouse populations and their habitat use are discussed and important 

aspects of the local sage-grouse ecology are incorporated into the LUP amendments.

All Both rmc0066GB

415. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) has developed draft guidelines to assist stakeholders in managing Utah's 

sage-grouse populations. These are found in Appendix 5 of Utah's 2009 Sage-grouse Management Plan. We recommend these 

guidelines be incorporated into BLM/FS scoping process and be implemented into LUP Amendments.

All Both rmc0066GB

416. Sage Grouse survival depends on some degree of removal of vegetative material. Green shoots that are both palatable and 

nutritious are necessary for a portion of the year. Survival also depends on sufficient habitat to nest in and sufficient habitat to 

survive the winter. Managed grazing by domestic cattle and sheep has provided these needs.

All Both rmc0057GB

417. The agencies primary goal through this process should be to maintain and increase current sage grouse populations and their 

distribution through conservation measures that safeguard current populations and enhance and restore sage brush habitat 

throughout the species’ range. Populations should be increased to levels where they are secure from local extirpation, and 

eventually to levels that allow for an annual harvestable surplus of sage grouse across its range.

All Both emc0380GB

418. Priority and general habitat, as recommended by the NTT, must be diligently designated to ensure that all key habitat areas are 

considered in management planning processes. Priority habitat should include all winter range, breeding habitat and migration 

corridors for sage grouse and policies on disturbances should be based on peerreviewed science and technical reports from 

federal agencies and NGO’s.

All Both emc0180GB

419. When there is a proposed action within an area identified as sage grouse habitat and prior to any policy being iimposed or 

decision being made, WLC recommends that it should be the BLM's policy to have a field investigation performed by a 

qualified biologist (to identify whether the habitat is quality and whether sage grouse sign has been identified). Restrictions 

should not be imposed on a project if, after three visits by qualified staff, no evidence of sage-grouse (either visual siting or 

scat) is found.

All BLM rmc0068GB

420. In addition, it has been mentioned that the BLM may impose restrictions within a "buffer area", which is in addition to and 

beyond the boundaries identified on the NDOW Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Categorization Map. Buffers of any kind, 

beyond the boundaries identified on the Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Categorization Map, should not be imposed. The BLM's 

EIS (and subsequent policy) should clearly identify the regulatory authority of BLM Field and District offices related to sage 

All Both rmc0068GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-510 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

grouse when regulating and restricting activities within areas designated as sage grouse habitat and whether buffers of any kind 

(beyond the identified boundary) can be imposed.

421. Analyze the extent that weather patterns influence the success of chick survival and brood-success, overtime. All Both rmc0055GB

422. The Board appreciates statements of working cooperatively with operators, use of ecological site descriptions, etc. However, 

the Board does NOT support the statement "if local/state seasonal habitats are not available, use sage-grouse habitat 

recommendations from Connelly et al 2000b and Hagen et al. 2007." This is a function better served by local sage-grouse 

working groups and technical experts.

All Both rmc0050GB

423. Before new policy is adopted for the management of sage grouse, studies need to be completed which will determine for 

certain whether leaving large amounts of standing grass within management areas is detrimental to sage grouse or not.

All Both rmc0054GB

424. We contend that the peak bird populations were man caused through development ofmeadows and water sources, predator 

control, and cattle and sheep grazing. The current decline is caused by regulations that are stifling these activities.

All BLM fxc0013GB

425. I control several hundred thousand acres of federa11and for grazing purposes and the majority of it is considered critical and 

essential habitat. Sage Grouse are plentiful on most of my range. The highest nwnber of birds however is on my deeded 

ground. Maybe ranchers like my self are better lands managers than the government and capable preserving habitat while at 

the same time harvesting more forage from the deeded than is allowed by the BLM.

All Both fxc0017GB

426. Deal with the individual populations needs as indicated by research. All Both rmc0032gb

427. Priority habitat designation should be clearly defined and concisely identified with polygons identifying the actual percentage 

meeting the criteria.

All Both rmc0032GB

428. There is ample greater sage-grouse habitat within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and 

National Conservation Areas to support the minimum effective population of 5,000 breeding adults needed to safeguard the 

species against extinction. These nationally designated areas are already managed under special regulatory mechanisms that in 

many instances mirror the proposed mechanisms that current sage-grouse planning strategies recommend for conservation of 

the species and its habitat. Thus, the proposed EIS process must analyze greater sage-grouse population levels and trends in 

these nationally designated areas. If analysis of these nationally designated areas, which likely support more than 5,000 greater 

sagegrouse, demonstrates that the regulatory mechanisms currently in place have maintained such populations or allowed 

them to increase, then there is no need to implement additional conservation measures anywhere else in the bird’s occupied 

range, because the greater sagegrouse does not legally qualify for listing under the ESA based upon its existence and trend in 

these nationally designated areas alone. In contrast, if analysis demonstrates that greater sagegrouse populations have declined 

in these nationally designated areas, like they have elsewhere in their currently occupied range, then the entire line of 

reasoning regarding the factors responsible for the decline must be reevaluated. Likewise, if greater sage-grouse populations 

have declined in these nationally designated areas despite the regulatory mechanisms that constrain their use, all 

recommendations to implement similar regulatory restrictions across vast additional portions of the species range need to be 

rejected entirely. Instead, management practices that were in place when greater sage-grouse populations dramatically 

increased from the mid 1800s to early 1900s need to be identified and implemented again.

All Both emc0409gb

429. To meet the Notice of Intent’s stated purpose “to avoid a potential listing” of Greater Sage-Grouse (GSG) under the ESA, the All Both emc0409gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-511

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

BLM’s EIS process must address four issues related to population levels at which the species would be at long-term risk of 

extinction, as follows: 1] a determination of the minimum effective population (the number of birds needed to safeguard 

against the risk of extinction, either immediately or in the foreseeable future); 2] a determination of current regional and 

range-wide population levels in relation to the minimum effective population; 3] an analysis of historic population trends and 

the factors that drove those trends; and, 4] identification of the habitat area(s) that need to be properly managed to maintain 

the minimum effective population.

430. The FWS Findings determined that a minimum effective population of 5,000 individuals will safeguard GSG from the long-term 

risk of extinction range-wide.The FWS Findings argue “a minimum effective population size must be 5,000 individuals to 

maintain evolutionary minimal viable populations of wildlife (retention of sufficient genetic material to avoid effect of 

inbreeding depression or deleterious mutations).” See page 13959, underlined emphasis added. Given the lack of any 

published studies establishing a more specific minimum effective population for GSG, the FWS Findings conclude “the 

minimum viable population size necessary to sustain the evolutionary potential of a species... has been estimated as high as an 

adult population of 5,000 individuals” (see page 13985, underlined emphasis added). The FWS Findings establish lower 

minimum effective populations associated with the risk of extirpation for discrete GSG communities at more localized or 

regional scales. The FWS Findings determined that discrete sage-grouse populations “that fell below 50 breeding adults” were 

at risk for short-term extirpation, while “those that fell below 500 breeding adults” were at risk for long-term extirpation. See 

page 13959. Thus, the minimum effective population for GSG to maintain sufficient genetic material to protect the species 

from the long-term risk of extinction has been determined by the FWS to be 5,000 mature birds range-wide, while the 

minimum effective population on a regional scale has been determined to be 500 breeding adults.

All Both emc0409gb

431. The FWS Findings estimate that the current GSG population range-wide totals approximately 535,000 birds. Table 4 of the 

FWS Findings reports GSG population estimates by state/region based upon data from state wildlife agencies collected 

between 2002 and 2008. The estimates for all of the state/region populations combined total 535,542 GSG. See Table 4, page 

13921. The total estimated current GSG population of approximately 535,000 birds is 107 times greater than the "minimum 

effective population" of 5,000 birds needed to maintain sufficient genetic material to protect the species from the long-term 

risk of extinction. The estimated populations for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in Table 4 of the FWS Findings were based 

upon hunting harvest data, assuming that 5% of the population is harvested. Elsewhere, the FWS Findings assume that 10% of 

the population is harvested by hunting (page 13921), which would cut in half the estimated populations reported in Table 4 

(page 13921) for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, resulting in a total estimated current GSG population of over 350,000 birds 

(351,252). This is still 70 times greater than the "minimum effective population" of 5,000 birds. Based upon a current estimated 

population for GSG of 350,000 to 535,000 birds, 70 to 107 times greater than the "minimum effective population" of 5,000 

birds, it is clear that GSG are not endangered with imminent extinction. Instead, the FWS Findings fret that the species may 

warrant listing because presumed trends of declining populations, if continued, may threaten the species with extinction 

sometime in the future. However, given the estimated contemporary (1985 to 2007) rate of decline of 1.4% per year (page 

13922), it would take 300 to 330 years for the estimated current GSG population to dwindle to the minimum effective 

population of 5,000 birds. Speculating what might occur three centuries from now stretches way beyond the foreseeable 

future.

All Both emc0409gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-512 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

432. The FWS Findings admit that GSG numbers are difficult to estimate due to numerous factors. See page 13921. The FWS 

Findings ultimately conclude since neither presettlement nor current numbers of sage-grouse are accurately known, the actual 

rate and magnitude of decline since presettlement times is uncertain. See page 13923. Note the assumption that the overall 

trend reflects a decline from pre-settlement times. Despite the recognition that the rate and magnitude of change in GSG 

populations over time is uncertain, the FWS Findings assume that GSG populations have significantly declined from 

pre-settlement populations based primarily upon conclusions from several sources indicating that sage-grouse population 

numbers in the late 1960s and early 1970s were likely two to three times greater than current numbers. See page 13922. The 

FWS Findings report that GSG experienced long-term population declines in the past 43 years, with that decline lessening in 

the past 22 years.” See page 13923. These observations are consistent with testimony of Nevada residents that have firsthand 

memories dating back from that period, or earlier, some as far back as the 1930s. Given relatively high GSG populations in the 

1960s and lower numbers today, the FWS Findings assume an overall downward population trend from the pre-settlement 

period, as depicted graphically by the dashed grey trend line in Figure 1 on page 14 herein. The downward trend between the 

1960s and today is assumed to be so steep due to rapid agricultural conversion of sagebrush habitat starting in the late 1960s. 

The downward trend in GSG populations is projected to extend back in time prior to the 1960s at an overall slower rate of 

decline, except for a period of accelerated decline associated with commercial hunting in the 1930s. Likewise, the downward 

trend in GSG populations is forecast to continue into the foreseeable future, at a slightly slower rate. This forecast leads to the 

conclusion that GSG populations will eventually reach levels near or below the minimum effective population of 5,000 

breeding adults, putting the species at risk for eventual extinction. See dashed grey trend line depicted in Figure 1. However, 

we know from documented sources that the assumed higher GSG population levels in the early and mid 1800s depicted by the 

dashed grey trend line are simply wrong, at least with respect to known GSG population levels at various points in recorded 

history for the Great Basin. GSG within the Western Region, particularly the Great Basin, were scarce during the 

pre-settlement period, much less abundant than today. Ira Hansen, Nevada State Assemblyman, prepared a report (attached) 

regarding pre-settlement GSG populations throughout Nevada and the Great Basin based upon written accounts of early 

explorers in the region. Those early written accounts indicate that between about 1820 and 1850, GSG were uncommon, 

being observed only rarely by the explorers, and were seldom included in the diets of the Native Americans due to their 

scarceness. Similarly, in Part III of the King Exploration Report5 based upon fieldwork from June 1867 to August 1869, 

Ornithologist Robert Ridgway reported “birds characteristic of the sage-brush are not numerous, either as to species or 

individuals, but several of them are peculiar to these districts;” including Centrocercus urophasianus (GSG). See page 324. 

Regarding GSG, Ridgway reported “(a)lthough this large and well-known Grouse was met with throughout the sage-brush 

country between the Sierra Nevada and the Wahsatch (sic), we saw it so seldom that little was learned of its habits, 

particularly during the breeding-season.” See page 600. Likewise, the forecast that GSG populations will continue to 

significantly decline into the foreseeable future appears to be wrong based upon recent studies within the Great Basin. Nevada 

Department of Wildlife Studies report increasing GSG populations within the state from 2008 through 2010. A complete 

picture of Great Basin GSG numbers since written records began indicates: 1] pre-settlement populations were quite low, but 

well scattered; 2] populations dramatically increased between the late 1800s and early 1900s; 3] populations peaked in about 

1930 and remained high through the 1960s (perhaps interrupted by a moderate dip due to commercial hunting); 4] 

All Both emc0409GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-513

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

populations declined rapidly from the 1970s through about 2000; and, 5] populations declined more slowly from 2000 through 

2010, and have even increased during the last part of this period in certain locations. Figure 1 displays these circumstances

graphically. All available information regarding estimated Great Basin GSG numbers from the early 1800s to present is shown 

as triangular data points in Figure 1, connected by a smoothed black line. To determine the overall direction of change in Great 

Basin GSG populations over time, a linear trend line6 for the Great Basin data is depicted in Figure 1 as a solid grey line, and 

increased over time. This is the exact opposite of the assumed downward trend predicted by the FWS Findings based upon 

the period between the 1960s and the present. It is unreasonable to base conclusions regarding long-term population trends 

only upon knowledge regarding population levels at two points in history, 1960 and today, when we have knowledge regarding 

sage-grouse populations at other times. Consideration of all historic Great Basin population estimates for GSG indicates that 

pre-settlement populations were low, populations dramatically increased between the mid 1800s and early 1900s, populations 

rapidly declined from about 1970 to 2007, and then increased slightly thereafter, as depicted in Figure 1. When interpreting 

graphic representations of data like that presented in Figure 1, it is helpful to develop biologically relevant explanations for the 

points where the population curve significantly changes slope or reverses direction. The population trend explanations 

suggested by the FWS Findings have the potential to explain only two of the deflections shown in Figure 1 for Great Basin GSG

populations. Commercial hunting could explain the population decline depicted in the 1930s, and agricultural conversions 

could explain the rapid population decline beginning in about 1970. However, agricultural conversions were taking place as 

early as the turn of the century, and Great Basin GSG populations were significantly increasing at that time, rather than 

decreasing.

433. Less than 1.5% of the current GSG breeding population needs to be conserved to support the minimum effective population 

of 5,000 birds. Because the species is heavily concentrated in high-quality portions of its occupied range (see Doherty7), less 

than 0.25% of the total acreage in the highest breeding density portions of the occupied range needs to be conserved to 

support the minimum effective population (see calculation in footnote 7). Likely, far more than 5,000 GSG, and more than 

0.25% of the species high quality breeding habitat, are located within existing Wilderness Areas, National Wildlife Refuges, 

National Parks, and National Conservation Areas. Thus, these nationally designated areas likely already support more GSG 

than the minimum effective population needed to safeguard the species from extinction. These nationally designated areas are 

already managed under special regulatory mechanisms that in many instances mirror the proposed mechanisms that current 

sage-grouse planning strategies recommend for conservation of the species and its habitat. Thus, the EIS process needs to 

analyze greater sage-grouse population levels and trends in these nationally designated areas to determine how many GSG 

they contain, and the extent to which their habitat areas are sufficient to sustain the minimum effective population of 5,000

birds. If analysis of these nationally designated areas confirms that they currently support more than 5,000 greater 

sage-grouse, and demonstrates that their populations have been maintained or have increased under the regulatory 

mechanisms implemented in these areas, then there is no need to implement additional conservation measures anywhere else 

in the bird’s occupied range. In such case, the GSG does not need to be listed under the ESA because its existence and trend 

in these nationally designated areas alone is sufficient to safeguard it from extinction. In contrast, if analysis demonstrates that 

greater sage-grouse populations have declined in these nationally designated areas, like they have elsewhere in their currently 

occupied range, then the entire line of reasoning regarding the factors responsible for the GSG population decline must be 

All Both emc0409gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-514 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

reevaluated. If GSG population declines have occurred in these nationally designated areas that received such designation 

because of their expansive, wild, undisturbed characteristics, then factors other than habitat loss, destruction, and 

fragmentation due to man’s activities must be driving the GSG population declines. Likewise, if greater sage-grouse 

populations have declined in these nationally designated areas despite the regulatory mechanisms that constrain their use, all 

recommendations to implement similar regulatory restrictions across vast additional acreages of the GSG range need to be 

rejected entirely. If regulatory controls to minimize human disturbance have failed to allow GSG populations to flourish within 

the vast wilderness areas and other nationally designated conservation areas, then it is unreasonable to apply such draconian 

control measures to broad landscapes beyond the boundaries of these areas in the vain hope that such regulation will 

somehow work in other locations. To implement regulatory mechanisms that are certain to severely interfere with other valid 

existing uses of the landscape and negatively impact local and regional economies in the face of evidence that such mechanisms 

did not reverse the plight of the GSG in these nationally designated areas would be unreasonable, irrational, and 

counter-productive. Instead, if the minimum effective population of GSG to protect the species from extinction cannot be 

supported within such nationally designated areas, management practices that were in place when greater sage-grouse 

populations dramatically increased from the mid 1800s to early 1900s need to be identified and implemented again in other 

areas.

434. The December 2011 BLM IMs8 instruct all BLM Field Officials in all program areas to consider and implement specific GSG 

conservation measures contained in the associated December 2001 BLM Report9 when conducting projects within 

“Preliminary Priority Habitat.” “Preliminary Priority Habitat” is currently delineated to encompass essentially all of the highest 

quality breeding habitat that supports 75% of the known breeding population, which includes approximately 27% of the 

occupied range of the GSG (see Doherty, page 2). On their face, the BLM IMs both indicate that the instructions promote 

“sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations” (IM 2012-043 at pages 1 and 2, and IM 2012-044 at page 2). Such an objective 

is consistent with a goal to maintain the minimum effective population needed to safeguard the species from extinction, and 

thus avoid the purported need for the species to be listed under the ESA. In other words, the minimum effective population 

of 5,000 breeding adults needed to provide sufficient genetic material to protect the species from the long-term risk of 

extinction represents the minimum sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse population. As discussed above, the minimum effective 

population of 5,000 birds comprises less than 1.5% of the current GSG breeding population, and requires less than 0.25% of 

the total acreage in the occupied range for support. While the IMs imply that the goal of BLM GSG conservation is to promote 

sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations, they provide instructions to provide conservation protections to 75% of the 

current GSG breeding population (50 times as many birds) across a landscape that is more than 100 times larger than the area 

needed by the minimum effective population (27% of the occupied GSG range rather than 0.25%). The massive expansion of 

the conservation goal from one intended to promote a sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse population to one that directs the 

promotion of 50 times as large a population on more than 100 times as much land as is needed is the outgrowth of a subtle 

change in wording contained in the goal statement of the BLM Report. Page 2 of the BLM Report states that the BLM 

“endorsed the goal” of the Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et. al., 2006) “to maintain and 

enhance populations and distribution of sage‐grouse by protecting and improving sagebrush habitats and ecosystems that 

sustain these populations” (underlined emphasis added). Note that the goal endorsed by the BLM Report to “sustain these 

All Both emc0409gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-515

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

populations” changes the ESA compliant goal of maintaining a sustainable population (minimum effective population) to 

safeguard the GSG from extinction to an expanded goal to maintain or enhance current populations. Since current GSG 

populations are so much larger than the minimum effective population, the expanded goal to sustain current populations 

requires conservation of many more birds over a much larger landscape than would be required to merely protect the species 

from the risk of long-term extinction. Thus, while the Notice of Intent states that the purpose of the EIS process is to “avoid 

a potential listing” of the GSG under the ESA, the conservation measures identified for analysis under the EIS process, and 

already implemented by the BLM IMs, actually provide ESA styled protections to far more GSG over a much larger landscape 

than would be the case if the populations were to actually dwindle to the point that they met the criteria for listing under the 

ESA.

435. If it is determined that no nationally designated special areas currently provide proximate habitats to support the free flow of 

genetic information among a minimum effective population of 5,000 breeding adults, the EIS process must evaluate the extent 

to which nearby habitats could be incorporated into a management network to establish such proximate habitats. For 

example, there may be two nationally designated wilderness areas that each support a population of 3,000 GSG, but are 

distant enough from each other to prevent the free flow of genetic information between them. Existing GSG habitat located 

between these areas could be managed to establish a proximate habitat network that allows the free flow of genetic 

information for a GSG population that exceeds the minimum effective population of 5,000 breeding adults.

All Both emc0409gb

436. We question the adequacy of the NOI in that it does not specifically speak to the overriding goal of the EIS and subseql.lent 

RMP. That is: How mllch habitat aneVor How many sage grouse will be needed to satisfy a detennination that adequ~te 

regulatory meGhUl1isms arc in plaGe? The finding by USFWS 01'1 the petition to list sage grousc, dated March 23,2010, 

suggests 5,000 birds may be adequate to prevent extinction. Is this the acceptable popUlation level? Are the acres of hahitat

located within special designation areas that preclude development (ie. Wilderness, National Monuments) adequate to 

prevent extinction'? BLM IM No. 2012-043 (Greater SageGrouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures) and 1M No. 

201.2-044 (BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Usc Planning Strategy) also do not specifically speak to the goal though 

the RMP 1M alludes to it in its referenced attachment. Absent setting the goal, the process is Hawed even before it gets strut 

ed, since the stakeholders are in a vacuum as to how and what to comment For example, if it can be said that a viable 

population of sage grouse (i.e. adequate to prevent extinction) can be sustained in Owyhee County, Idaho, then the goal could

be to just maintain existing sage grouse habitat and sage grouse populations in Owyhee Col.mty and to ignore any sage grouse 

habitat/populations in the remaining Western United States. In short, how much habitat is enough and how many birds will it 

take to sustain the viability of the species? Have the decisions already been made to restore all sagc grouse habitat on BT 

,MlUSFS LaneLe; across the bird's entire historical range or that adequate regulatory mechanisms will be considered to be in 

place when sage grouse populations reach prewestern settlcment numbers? Do the Griteria used by state wildlife agencies to 

regulate hunting seasons and set bag limits adequately address the goal? Without these sideboards, publie land users are 

forced to participate ill any and all RMP proceses whether we have interests therein or not. This is necessary in order to 

prevent anyone of the individual RMP processes from directing management focus to one or more other areas as opposed 

to their own. The detenninations will also be necessary in order to prioritize where management proposals should be 

implernented in order to most effeetivcly/efflciently reach target goals.

All Both fxc0011gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-516 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

437. Only sOlUld science, based upon peer reviewed research, should be used to develop conclusions and management 

prescriptions. Opinion pieces, editorials, and biased recommendations for management, such as "A Blueprint for Sage-Grouse 

Con~ervution and Recovery" dated May 2006, and authored by a Clait E. Brau.n, are WlSuitable for consideration as reputable 

sources or guidance. Range-wide management prescription~ must be ba.o::ed upon range-wide temporal, spatial and 

replicable research and not upon inference acquired from unrelated or incomplete studies. The following knowledge gaps, 

relating to Sage Grouse, Habitat, Patch Size, and Ecological Site and Restoration Issues need to be addres~ed prior to imposing 

related land use restrictions or modifications:

All BLM fxc0011gb

438. NOI sage grouse research has been observation studies, not planned experiments (Rowland and Wisdom 2002). Few studies 

have used randomized and replicated treatments with controls for comparison. Planned expeliments give us cause and effect 

Lmderstanding of sage gro'use and their habitat. This is the only way to understand theeffects of management actions such as 

vegetation and land treatments and predator contTol measures (Rowland and Wisdom 2002). We stmlack basic infoDllation 

on sage grouse population growth rates and survival/mortality at different life stages (Rowland and Wisdom 2002). Even basic 

assumptions, such as the importance of hen productivity and chlck survival in driving populations, need to be examined. 

Rowland and Wisdom (2002) recommend mark and recapturc studies as a more accurate method for estimating sage grouse 

populations than lek counts. • Most studies focus on breeding and brood rearing habitat (Rowland and Wisdom 2002). We 

know much less about fall and winter habitat. In winter, we do not know much more than, "Sage grouse cat sagebrush." • 

There is no experimental data on the effccts ofhunling on sage grouse populations (Rowland and Wisdom 2002). • Most sage 

grouse research has been short term stndies. Rowland and Wisdom (2002) found that 1he median study length was 2 years 

and only 10% of studies were longer than 5 years. Without long term studies wc cannot llnderstand population cycles (Fedy 

and Doherty 2011). If we do not underst<llld population cycles we cannot determine the true effects of weather patterns or 

management actions, as the apparen.t e:flects of these vary with population cycles.

All Both fxc0011gb

439. We still lack adequatc infonnation required to determine the type and amount of habitat needed to maintain sage grouse 

populations and genetic diversity. o Knick and Hanser's (2011) study highlighted the alarming Jack of data on sage grOlLQe 

dispersal. Thei.r analysis of range-wide lek connectivity cited two studies. o Genetic studies arc needed to understand the 

genetic implications of dispersal patterns and habitat connectivity. o Better tracking methods arc needed to understand 

dispersal and migration patterns.

All Both fxc0011gb

440. The results of the recent spatial analyses in Knick and COlmelly (2011) are difficult 1.0 interpret and apply to decisions on

arguably appropriate sage grouse habitat. Wc need clear, "on the ground" management implications from spatial analyses in 

order to apply the fmdings. The Department of the Interior se}Jarates research and management activities into separate 

agencies and forbids researchers fTom discussing management issnes. This mll<jt change; researchers must share their 

knowledge.

All Both fxc0011gb

441. The ecological site concept helps us predict how vegetation will respond after disturbau(.;e or management actions. This is an 

ideal :fi:amework to b'Uide management of sage b'rouse habitat. However, wildlife managers Clnd researchers are generally 

reluctant to use this approach and seem to have trouble understanding it. Wildlife workers tend to prefer maps of emrent, 

rather than potential, vegetation states (Doherty et al. 2011), Despite Connelly et al.'s (2000) reconmlenciation that sage 

grouse h..~bitat recommendations be adapted to local conditions, there is little infonnation on this. Ecological sites would he 

All BLM fxc0011gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-517

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

a ration..1..l franlework for doing this.

442. (10) Much effort has been spent in analyzing threats to the continued existance of sage grouse. A land use planning reaction or 

decision to mitigate these threats should be comparable to the magnitude oUhe threat. For example, it makes little sense to 

overly react to the potential impact of public lek vieWing while ignoring tbe potential impact of wild fire that may tllreaten the 

entire range of a distinct sage grouse population, This also relates to (7) above as it applies to conserving entire bird 

populations and not individual birds.

All Both fxc0011gb

443. I began hunting and herding sheep in the mountains of Utah in 1940. Sage Grouse were present in limited numbers at that time. 

I have observed them over the years to the present. I cannot tell any difference in their numbers over that period of time.

All Both fxc0015GB

444. In contrast, if sage-grouse populations have declined in these nationally designated areas like they have elsewhere in their 

currently occupied range, then the entire line of reasoning regarding the factors responsible for the decline must be 

reevaluated. If sage-grouse have declined in these areas that received national designations because of their expansive, wild, 

undisturbed characteristics, and have been largely protected by existing regulatory mechanisms from further human 

disturbance and development since their designation, then factors other than habitat loss, destruction, and fragmentation due 

to man’s activities must be driving the GSG population declines. Likewise, if greater sage-grouse populations have declined 

in these nationally designated areas despite the regulatory/policy mechanisms that constrain their use, all recommendations to 

implement similar regulatory restrictions across vast additional acreages of the GSG range need to be rejected entirely. If 

regulatory/policy controls to minimize human disturbance failed to help GSG populations flourish within the vast wilderness 

areas and other nationally designated conservation areas, then it is unreasonable to apply such draconian control measures to

broad landscapes beyond their boundaries in a futile hope that such regulation will somehow work in other locations.

All Both emc0402GB

445. Implementation of regulatory mechanisms that will severely interfere with other valid existing uses of the landscape and 

negatively impact the western economy in the face of evidence that such mechanisms did not improve the plight of GSG in 

existing nationally designated areas would be unreasonable and irrational. Instead, management practices that were in place 

when greater sage-grouse populations dramatically increased from the mid 1800s to early 1900s need to be identified and 

implemented again, including increased livestock grazing to reduce fire fuel loads and wildfire impacts, and implementation of 

concerted predator control programs.

All Both emc0402GB

446. H. Conservation Measure Alternatives to the Core Area Exclusion Approach AWEA believes that preservation of the 

sage-grouse can best be achieved by enlisting the wind industry as a partner in conservation and that wind developments can 

be designed and operated to coexist with sagegrouse habitats. Site-specific habitat analyses can be completed pre- and 

post-construction research to assess the potential impact of wind energy projects on sage-grouse to determine how they 

these projects can best be sited and maintained to mitigate any potential impacts on sage-grouse habitats. Compensatory 

mitigation measures can also be pursued to provide a net benefit to the species, such as establishing conservation banks that

benefit specific populations in various regions that are most in need. Another approach to preserving the sage-grouse is 

augmenting small existing populations in isolated areas by translocating sage-grouse from other areas and combining the 

relocations with habitat enhancement activities. These strategies would help to prevent extirpation at the edges of the range 

and enhance the genetic diversity in these small populations as well.199 Significant scientific uncertainty surrounds the threats 

All Both emc0344GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-518 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

posed to sage-grouse and the value of different conservation tactics. Therefore, the sponsorship of applied research to 

determine what measures are effective in enhancing existing sagebrush habitat could provide significant contributions to the 

species. Examples of other potential mitigation and/or conservation measures that we believe would have the greatest positive 

impact on sage-grouse populations are as follows: 1. Funding a database that would compile all known data on sage-grouse 

populations, mortality, trends, etc. on a regional and national basis. 2. Funding programs focused on habitat improvements and 

preservation. AWEA and the wind industry remain available to discuss these and other options that could provide a net 

positive benefit to sage-grouse populations.

447. The sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, styled ‘greater sage-grouse’ by the American Ornithological Union) has been 

declining rangewide for the past 50 years, and has also experienced significant range contractions over the course of recorded 

history. The sage grouse decline to date is very serious. According to WAFWA (2006b:42), “Schroeder et. al. (2004) 

determined that the pre-settlement distribution of Greater sagegrouse encompassed 1.2 million square kilometers in western 

North America. The current occupied range of the greater sage grouse covers 668,412 square kilometers. This represents 

approximately 56% of the historically occupied range of the species. The loss of 44% of greater sage grouse range and the 

fragmentation/habitat degradation of remaining range poses great challenges for the perpetuation of the species.” The decline 

in parts of Wyoming where heavy industrial development has occurred has been as steep as anywhere in its range.

All Both emc0343GB

448. Rowland et al. (2006:1-6) encapsulated the level of threat to sage grouse habitats from oil and gas development as follows: A 

recently compiled inventory of onshore oil and natural gas reserves on federal lands focused on 5 geologic basins that contain 

the vast majority of these reserves in the 48 contiguous United States (U.S. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and 

Energy 2003). Four of the basins are centered in the Rocky Mountain region and extend across much of Wyoming, as well as 

parts of Colorado, Montana, and Utah (Fig. 1.3). These 4 basins also encompass 5 of the 7 “focus areas” that were given highest 

national priority for inventory related to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, due to the exceptional concentrations of oil 

and gas reserves found there (U.S. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy 2003). Overlying these basins is one 

of the largest remaining expanses of sagebrush in western North America; the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion alone contains 18.3 

million acres of sagebrush (Fig. 1.2), or 17% of all sagebrush in the United States (Knick et al. 2003). The extensive landscapes 

dominated by sagebrush in this area in turn support some of the largest extant populations of sagebrush obligates, such as 

greater sagegrouse and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), in the United States (Clark and Stromberg 1987, Connelly et al. 

2004).” P. 1-6. In effect, displacement of sage grouse from preferred habitats due to energy development is virtually as bad as 

outright direct mortality. According to Naugle et al. (2006:11), “Avoidance [of industrial zones] is typically detrimental to 

populations because individuals are forced into sub-optimal habitats where vital rates decline (i.e., survival and reproduction), 

which in turn negatively influences population growth rate, size, and persistence, and generally leaves populations with little 

capacity to respond to new stressors (e.g., West Nile virus).”

All Both emc0343GB

449. 20) A recent study suggests th..'lt sage grouse populations might fluctuate on an 8-ycar cycle. This finding should be veliiied 

plior to implementing management changes that may prove to be unwarranted.

All BLM fxc0011gb

450. 26) Published sage grouse habitat guidelines are guidelines; they are not standards and it would be inappropriate to enforce 

them all stanch.lrds (Wambolt et a1. 2002). These guidelines must be adapted to local ecological conditions to reflect the 

potential of sites to produce vegetation (Conoelly et a1. 2000). In addition, habitat guidelines cannot be used to evaluate data 

All BLM fxc0011gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-519

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

collected at different spatial scales (Davies ct a1. 2006, Hagen et a1. 2007), different stages of sage grouse life cycles 

(Hau~leitner et aI. 2005), or with different monitorlllg methods from those used to collect the underlying data.

451. ome birds also occur in a nadir of non-mapped sagebrush habitat, as well. This is ignored altogether, despite land areas having 

been identified as necessary for restoration. The reality of the mapping and habitat identification efforts to date is that they do 

not depict or protect many important seasonal habitat use areas required by sage-grouse, a landscape species. Nor is this just 

a mapping error due to incomplete knowledge. NDOW and Nevada BLM’s application of this new Model and its map legend, 

for example, show how habitats are excluded from the Priority Category on purpose. See NDOW Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Categorization Executive Summary March 2012 and NDOW Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Categorization White 

Paper, describing the process, five habitat categories, and how categories were lumped to fit the BLM Priority and General 

habitat segregation scheme. Even occupied areas of Moderate importance and transitional ranges used by sage-grouse were 

not considered priority habitat for this landscape bird in the Nevada model.

All Both emc0411GB

452. Plus the NTT’s application through the even weaker IM ensures continued sacrifice of important and critical habitats through 

the segregation of habitats and actions, and the lower level of care (if any) that the agency will take in addressing grazing, 

energy development, or other activities intruding into occupied General sage-grouse habitats. See IM 2012-044 description of 

General Habitat, then compare this to IM 2012-043s minimal provisions. Six pages of measures are applied to Priority Habitat. 

The sacrificed General Habitat gets one paragraph of measures.

All Both emc0411GB

453. A recent article exposes serious flaws in the Wyoming Core Model. 

Http://yubanet.com/enviro/Powder-River-Basin-sage-grouse-at-risk-forextirpation. Php#.T2TMsY79o6E The article Powder 

River Basin sage-grouse at risk for extirpation describes a BLM-commissioned report finding that: The study estimates that 27 

percent of the pre-development sage grouse population has already been lost as a result of heavy coalbed methane and 

conventional drilling in the Powder River Basin, and predicts that only 39 percent of the original population will remain when 

the full build-out of coalbed methane wells reached 8 wells per square mile across the Basin, even in the absence of a West 

Nile outbreak. The study also found that large leks would be expected to decline by 70 percent from predevelopment 

numbers as well spacing reaches 4 wells per square mile, the standard density for conventional oil and gas but only half the 

density of coalbed methane fields. The effect of drilling on sage grouse was found in the study to be strong out to 12.4 miles 

from the lek itself, indicating that larger Core Areas are warranted. So clearly large blocks of habitat must be protected, and 

it really is all the landscape used by a population of grouse, not just some arbitrary 4 or 5 mile distance from some leks, as 

proposed in the Doherty Core that BLM is using as the basis for this highly flawed Priority and General Habitat segregation 

model. It’s not that larger Core Areas are needed, it is the landscape that is used that must be protected

All Both emc0411GB

454. Since the initial Federal Register Notice appeared, we have been asking BLM and state game agencies about how habitat quality

factors into the habitat mapping, how many birds are actually in current populations, what number of birds constitutes a viable 

population, and how interacting populations are delineated and defined. All of these questions are unanswered in the Scoping 

material and other information that has trickled out. BLM Scoping materials claim: Working each step of the way with our 

partners, the BLM aims to maintain and restore high-quality habitat and flourishing populations of greater sage-grouse and 

other sagebrush-dependent species. This and a few other general non-specific sheets were posted on the ID BLM Website on 

Jan 17 and were not provided at early public meetings. http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/sagegrouse_ rmp_revision.html .Note: 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-520 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

BLM Web links keep changing. Hopefully this link continues to work as comments are read by agencies. But it is clear from 

this, and the captions on the PPH sage-grouse habitat map for Idaho related to sustaining populations that populations are 

indeed an issue. So then what are the numbers of birds in all the existing bits and pieces of habitat on BLM mapping? What is

each defined and monitored population? What number of birds must be in each population for it to be viable? No number has 

been provided by BLM in this process. Sage-grouse reports shy far away from identifying just what should be considered a 

viable population. Garton et al. 2009/2011 analyses don’t make clear what number of birds is considered to be a viable 

population. Population declines to 50 birds, and 500 birds, are described in the Garton Chapter, but there is no explanation 

of population viability and sustainability, or what the difference, if any, might be.

455. Some state game agencies, like Idaho, refuse to answer questions about the current number of birds in a state’s population, 

and in the small increasingly isolated local populations in many areas. Agencies can certainly use methods to develop 

reasonable estimates of current populations. After all, this is routinely done for all other game species they oversee, and has 

been done for sage-grouse. Estimates of a viable population for sage-grouse have been made at times. Horney (2008) in the 

Devil's Garden Draft CP mentions that Washington State had calculated that 3,000 sage-grouse were needed for viability. In 

Washington, The two isolated populations numbered 624 and 387 birds in 2003, having declined by nearly 80% since the 

1960’s (Schroeder et al. 2000). Results of the genetic analysis were interpreted to indicate that neither of these populations 

possessed enough genetic diversity to persist. The Washington state biologists estimated that it would take more than 3,000 

birds to maintain viable populations (WDFW 2004) Traill et al. 2007 provided estimates of 3310-3742 birds for Minimum 

viable population for birds. Brook et al. 2006 stated: Theoretical and empirical work has shown that once reduced in size and

geographical range, species face a considerably elevated risk of extinction. A median MVP was 1377 individuals. Reed et al. 

(2004) estimated 7316 mean, 5816 median individuals. This includes: Populations with strong negative growth rates were not 

included in this data set. Even populations in excess of 100,000 will not be viable if strong deterministic (anthropogenic) factors 

and habitat destruction are the forces driving the population to extinction. For these cases, the cause of decline must be 

identified and ameliorated before a useful estimate of MVP can be made (Caughley, 1994).

All BLM emc0411GB

456. The BLM’s Priority scheme must not be allowed to diminish any protections in Land Use Plans. Sagegrouse habitat protections 

in existing LUPs do not distinguish between PPH and PGH. All Occupied sage-grouse habitats must be protected, and this 

NEPA-less effort to impose a habitat sacrifice scheme on occupied sage-grouse habitat cannot trump existing LUP or other 

protections in the Interim. It is also imperative that no good existing land use plan protection that may protect sage-grouse 

habitats or populations from adverse impacts be diminished or weakened as an outcome of the EIS process.

All BLM emc0411GB

457. There was no information on the populations/numbers of birds that constituted each population presented. There was no 

information on what BLM considered the number of birds necessary to sustain a population. For example, is the very small 

circular figure in the Idaho PPH’s map of Upper Pahsimeroi-Little Lost region supposed to represent a viable population? If so 

how many birds currently are found there - 200? 300? What do current lek counts show for this area? How has this changed 

over time? And how many birds, really, could persist over time in that small PPH area? It is not reasonable to believe that this 

small land area could support a viable or a sustainablepopulation (whatever this means). BLM's Core/PPH Approach is a sure 

way to have smaller populations blink out, it promotes declines in larger populations, too. It is the opposite of a responsible 

conservation-based approach to saving sage-grouse.

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-521

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

458. Sage-grouse have already been found to Warrant ESA Listing so what does BLM do? It uses a Model that immediately 

segregates habitat occupied by sage-grouse into a General disposable category. The Warranted Finding means that the species 

is already in serious trouble, and there habitat issues including loss, fragmentation and degradation that must be fixed, and 

addressed with certainty.

All BLM emc0411GB

459. BLM also seems to have forgotten about the Connelly Guidelines from 2000, and the 2004 Connelly et al. Conservation 

Assessment that described three types of populations including one and two stage migratory populations that move over 

vast areas of the landscape in applying this habitat sacrifice scheme. The mapping in many areas does not reflect any 

recognition of population characteristics and how birds move through the landscape to fulfill seasonal needs.

All BLM emc0411GB

460. BLM must define and track habitat and population changes based on real-world populations. Agencies have begun using general 

floristic VMZ categories to examine trends, threats, etc. to sage-grouse. These management zone categories are nearly 

meaningless in a biological sense to the birds. These broad vegetation-based zones have nothing to do with whether there is 

functioning interconnected intact habitat or inter-connected functioning sage-grouse populations. The VMZs lump areas with 

better populations in with some areas of very few birds, to bury the low population areas in with larger populations and thus 

hide the fact that the areas with low numbers of birds (like much of southern Nevada, much of Utah), may be blinking out 

soon.

All BLM emc0411GB

461. The Plan amendments "will be limited to making land use plan decisions specific to the conservation of sage-grouse." This will 

only serve to cause more conflict. Many inadequate mining, energy, visual, transportation/OHV and other provisions of Land 

Use Plans come into direct conflict with sage-grouse habitat protection requirements, and it is very hard to understand just 

how BLM will split hairs here. See WWP Jarbidge RMP comments, explaining how weak VRM standards, lack of mineral 

withdrawals, energy accommodations and other RMP provisions would adversely affect management of sage-grouse habitats 

for sustainable populations. It will also serve to put more species in jeopardy - as sagebrush-dependent species with differing 

habitat requirements to some degree than sage-grouse get impacted as agencies shift and intensify all manner of degrading and 

disturbing uses (such as livestock) into the Sacrifice General occupied habitats or non-grouse areas.

All BLM emc0411GB

462. The Plan amendments "will be based on the principles of adaptive management." What does this mean? Agencies toss the term 

adaptive management blithely around. Strict sideboards must be applied, and specific actions must be triggered in response to

ecological problems, exceedances of grazing standards, declines in populations, failure to make progress toward recovery 

goals for sage-grouse numbers and occupied habitats, unexpected impacts or losses of sagebrush habitat, etc.

All Both emc0411GB

463. If agencies persist with the deeply flawed PPH, General and Non habitat segregation of sagebrush landscapes, then the EIS must 

fully examine the impacts of development in General or non-habitat and the sacrifices of it that will occur. Given the 

tremendous impact that development is now known to have (see for example news of recent Powder River Basin study by 

Naugle et al. showing the inadequacies of the Core Model and the need to protect habitats over far greater areas than the 

limited lek-derived Doherty et al. distances used in the core/Priority Models), how long will the BLM persist with this flawed 

Core and core-derived scheme? Under an honest assessment of the ecological harm that would be done under development 

scenarios, and continued chronic grazing disturbance, then what would actually happen to all the seasonal habitats required by 

a local sage-grouse population, or PMU? Look at the Nevada habitat mapping, for example. What would the effects be of 

foreseeable development in all the blue or white area stripes through the pink habitat stripes? Just because a development 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-522 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

occurs in an area segregated by agencies into a habitat sacrifice category does not mean that the Footprint or intrusion of that 

activity on the grouse habitat and population would not be very significant Example: Gold mines, Oil and Gas, industrial wind, 

industrial geothermal, industrial solar facilities situated in General or in Non-habitat would have a Footprint of noise, visual 

pollution, ancillary facilities and infrastructure, human disturbance, impacts to water tables, etc. that adversely impacts grouse 

in the Priority segregated habitats. This demonstrates flaws in this habitat segregation scheme. The cumulative impacts of all 

of these actions on actual populations and their viability must be assessed, not merely on sage-grouse lumped in VMZs or 

other contrivances that stymie clear understanding of actual populations and their habitats and viability.

464. The Core/Priority approach, upon which the IM and the mapping relies, relegates large areas of critically important sagebrush 

habitat to a "general" habitat category. NTT Report at 7 describes: "the overall objective to protect priority sage-grouse 

habitats from anthropogenic disturbances that will reduce distribution or abundance of sage grouse." Priority habitats are 

"areas that have the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing sage-grouse populations." By putting this habitat 

up on a pedestal - all other areas including intact mature and old growth sagebrush communities that may not have as many 

known leks or have not been adequately studied to identify critical seasonal habitat use - have been omitted from protections.

All Both emc0411GB

465. The report states that the priority habitat designations must reflect the vision, goals, objectives of the plan, if conservation 

measures are to be effective. It then discusses "collaboration" with WAFWA to identify a consistent way to designate 

sage-grouse priority habitat areas. But what will be the sideboards on the sound application of science in any "collaboration"? 

Scientists may be forced to concede to the many wishes of industry collaborators.

All Both emc0411GB

466. This process focuses to a large degree on leks (the subset of accessible leks about which most info is known) and not winter 

habitats, habitats essential for connectivity, many nesting habitats, brood rearing habitats, and the full inter-connected set of 

habitats required by sage-grouse populations. Instead of looking at habitats before writing them off as general habitat, which 

would be a precautionary approach to conservation, this process relegates unstudied areas to a "general" sacrifice zone. 

Since sage-grouse are a landscape bird (Connelly et al. 2004), disruption or loss of any one of these vital inter-connected 

habitats necessary for species survival over the course of a year may have dire consequences to populations. Much less 

information is known about wintering habitats, and about some nesting habitats, as well. This may depend on the complex 

interspersion of landscape features - topography, elevation, vegetation types, etc. Nesting, brood rearing and summer habitats 

may be 10-12 miles or more from leks. In fragmented habitats, birds may move over very large areas, as well. Examples: 

Bruneau and Jarbidge birds that move onto Duck Valley, or onto the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest as summer progresses. This is 

especially the case for less accessible/harder to access and study areas, and areas that have not had extensive radio-tracking 

and other studies. Plus there is bias in radio studies - with tendencies to cherry-pick study sites in areas where either the most 

birds are, or it is easiest to capture and mark birds. Thus the more accessible populations may be the ones for which habitat

attributes are the most well known.

All Both emc0411GB

467. The focus on broad, general geographic areas/ and veg communities is flawed in many ways: - Sage-grouse can readily move 

back and forth at times between some portions of these different vegetation Zones. Example: OR-ID-NV region. - This 

lumps together a lot of small, isolated populations with larger populations - so that declines in abundance or even complete 

losses of many smaller and medium-size dis-connected and spatially isolated populations will not stand out so much. So these 

losses will be muted by being lumped in with other larger populations. Example: Southern Great Basin MZ, MZ III. This 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-523

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

contains the tattered remnants of the remaining Utah sagebrush habitats, further fragmented with all manner of recent 

sagebrush "treatments", with a larger block of more inter-connected habitats in central Nevada including the Monitor block 

and White Pine block of PMUs. It also contains the nearly extinct Sonoma-Majuba-East Range and other isolated tiny PMUs 

between Winnemucca and Reno. Plus the Bi-state (Mono birds) are included in this same VMZ as well. Geographically 

separated and isolated populations are oddly all lumped together. - It is not based on genetic or behavioral differences of the 

bird, or any other factors really relevant to sage-grouse biological needs. In fact, agencies readily move captured birds around 

between VMZs. Example: Hart Mountain Northern Great Basin VMZ to Columbia Basin VMZ (WA state remnant 

population).

468. BLM, the Forest Service and USFWS should limit any reliance on any analysis based on MZs, and must instead focus on 

identified populations, and track what is happening to these populations and their habitats.

All Both emc0411GB

469. There is no data and analysis provided in the NTT on the relevant inter-acting biological populations. Those in need of 

immediate life-support and cessation of nearly all existing disturbances are not identified. Clearly identifying populations in 

most need of help and making immediate changes to stave off losses should be the first and foremost goal of agencies. Not 

contriving ways to exclude and write off sagebrush habitats from protection, or lump small scattered often isolated 

populations into general VMZs to avoid declines and extirpations being as obvious and alarming– which in reality is what this 

Core and Priority scheme does.

All Both emc0411GB

470. How is BLM defining populations in the NTT, IMs, and throughout this sage-grouse EIS process? Is it the meaningless 

Management Zones? Is it the population and sub-populations - under Connelly et al. (2004) such as Great Basin Core? Is it 

smaller populations (interacting), or PMUs, as defined under state plans or info from field studies? How is BLM defining 

sustainability of populations? Viability of populations? How many birds are currently in all identified populations, PMUs, etc.? 

What number constitutes a viable population?

All BLM emc0411GB

471. The NTT fails to provide population numbers, or any real discussion of the status of populations, or other reporting to 

develop interim management or to allow informed public Scoping input.

All Both emc0411GB

472. Develop quantifiable habitat and population objectives with WAFWA and other conservation partners. There must be a 

complete and valid baseline of habitat quality and quantity - so the degree and severity of habitat degradation can be 

understood. Baseline population levels for all populations and annual updates on population status for each population must be 

provided. There already should have been much more essential baseline habitat and population data, and clear terminology, 

provided in any Technical Report used to base Interim Management on, for this Scoping process. Examples: What are all 

existing inter-acting biological populations, the number of birds in each population unit at present, and the current ecological 

condition of habitat? This is necessary for the public to provide meaningful scoping comments, and to understand the adequacy

of the various Core, Priority, and other artificial categories and models being applied. This is necessary to develop a suitable 

range of alternatives in the EIS process. Much more solid information should have been provided as part of Scoping. It must be 

provided as a Supplement to Scoping for additional public comment. In fact, the 40 million dollar REA process had provided 

an opportunity to establish a timely baseline of overall habitat quality and quantity. But BLM purposefully omitted 

consideration of livestock disturbance, rendering the process invalid.

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-524 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

473. Sagebrush in Idaho, large areas of Nevada, large areas of Oregon, the tattered remnants of Utah sagebrush habitat, remnant 

fragments of California habitats, and some Montana habitats often occur within areas of naturally diverse and heterogeneous 

landscapes. This makes the "core model" of drawing circles around leks even more absurd. Drawing circles around leks often 

includes large areas of habitat that sage-grouse just do not use - for example in rugged Basin and Range topography.

All Both emc0411GB

474. This 3% allowable new disturbance applies only to priority habitats. The general habitat will be sacrificed even more. The IM 

breaks this down further - as if habitats were a pie or a square - where parts could be chopped off, based on percentages of 

the total habitat category area (whatever that may be) while ignoring the landscape setting, seasonal uses, how compromised 

habitat quality may be, chronic disturbances from grazing and other uses, and sources of mortality like fences. The percentages 

in NTT pages 8-9 and elsewhere seem premised on a false assumption that habitats are a neat, engineered box, where surgical 

precision can be exercised in cutting into that neat box so as not to exceed artificial percentages. And with each new cut, 

sagebrush habitats and bird populations will react predictably. These percentages appear to be derived from limited oil and gas 

studies, in areas where sage-grouse populations were at much higher levels and existing in much more continuous habitat 

when development set in than is currently the case across the sage-grouse range.

All Both emc0411GB

475. This Appendix describes: Sage-grouse have been documented traveling more than 20 miles from leks to nests. (p. 51). 

"Average distance between a female’s nest and the lek on which she was first observed ranged from 3.4 km to 7.8 km (4.8 

miles)." This is only "average distance!" This shows how inadequate the Priority Areas mapped in places like the Pahsimeroi in 

Idaho are. In many instances the minimal distances would sacrifice very important areas for sage-grouse. In areas of fragmented 

habitat, birds may move over vast areas. For example, the Jarbidge BLM (Commons-Kemner 2003, recent IDFG and USAF 

studies). "Many populations of sage-grouse migrate between seasonal ranges in response to habitat distribution" (Connelly et 

al. 2004) p. 52. Migration distances of up to 100 miles have been recorded. "Almost no information is available regarding the

distribution and characteristics of migration corridors for sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004) p. 52. Sage-grouse dispersal 

(permanent moves to other areas) is poorly understood (Connelly et al. 2004, Knick and Hanser 2011). In areas of naturally 

fragmented habitats, or where fire has fragmented big blocks of habitat into small patches - sage-grouse may have to move 

over much larger areas if a population is to remain viable. All of this argues strongly against use of the Core and Priority 

schemes. This approach is not biologically valid, especially in the increasingly broken, fragmented habitats faced by sage-grouse 

across their range. All of the above information shows how risky and uncertain drawing 4 or 5 mile circles around leks - and 

then using that as the primary basis for the poor Idaho and some other mapping efforts. Or, as in the Nevada example, not 

including even known seasonal use areas as Priority Habitat.

All Both emc0411GB

476. Following Appendix A's admitting large-scale uncertainty about many sage-grouse habitats, and acknowledging that 

sage-grouse often nest a long distance from leks, Appendix B then proceeds to claim that managers need a high degree of 

certainty that their management actions will have the anticipated outcome. The Core and Priority habitat segregation scheme, 

which is driving this BLM EIS Scoping process, is fraught with uncertainty and significant risk. BLM admits "..unfortunately, 

natural systems have inherent complexity and stochasticity that make certainty in wildlife management decisions challenging." 

"Management in sagebrush ecosystems is further complicated by new forms of development or the unprecedented pace at 

which traditional uses are increasing." "Wind and other renewable energy sources are being proposed and developed in areas 

that previously had undergone little development." "We do not know how sage grouse respond to the increasing intensity 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-525

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of all uses ranging from traditional commodity development to non-consumptive activities." "The changes due to the 

cumulative effect of this new level of increased development may take years to be fully expressed in habitat and population 

response." All of this information further exposes the severe flaws in the habitat (and Population) sacrificing Core and 

Priority schemes. BLM has embraced and put into action without any NEPA analysis or adequate scientific scrutiny an 

industry-serving habitat sacrifice and segregation scheme.

477. The BLM is using a “Framework for sage-grouse impacts analysis for interstate transmission lines 05- 17-2011” in the Gateway 

Transmission line process. This states: An analysis of sage grouse populations within 18 km of the project is a critical 

component of an indirect impacts analysis for grouse. They may be impacted by loss habitat functionality. Yet the core model 

doesn’t even prioritize habitats within 18 km. This also states that: the construction of a transmission project or other linear 

facility may pose an additional hindrance of seasonal migration patterns or avoidance of important seasonal habitats once used 

extensively by local sage grouse populations”. It continues: “Qualitative and quantitative measures of habitat change must be

considered in describing the potential impacts. In the context of managing a species that requires a large landscape of habitats 

to meet their life cycle needs, and the nature of the proposed disturbance, it is reasonable to make some assumptive 

predictions about the relative impacts within 18km”.

All Both emc0411GB

478. Step 1. Determination of leks that will be used. ALL the habitat should be examined – not just focusing on leks at the outset. 

Sage-grouse are a landscape species. All leks within 4 miles of the outer boundary of the project, and within Key Habitat/Core 

Habitat, would be used. So does this mean that if a lek is not within the artificial “core” area, and instead lies within a non-core 

or “general” habitat sacrifice area, that the lek will not be considered, or given equal weight? If so, this is ecological madness. 

Step 2. DDC area size and configuration is all tied to leks – to winter, brood rearing, nesting, or other habitats. Step 3. 

Disturbance will be evaluated for the DDC as a whole. As above, the DDC is not the population. It is impossible to fully 

evaluate impacts unless the population is addressed. This fixation on leks allows BLM to: 1) Sacrifice to development large 

areas of sagebrush wild lands more distant from known leks; 2) Minimize understanding of impacts on a biologically meaningful 

population unit. Connelly et al. (2004) describe how population characteristics vary in migratory patterns. What if a functional 

breeding population exists within a 20 square mile area – surrounded by large areas of unsuitable habitat? What if the highest 

quality remaining habitat is located at a greater distance than the 4 mile core circle around a known lek in the lek model? What 

if the population is already very low? Of course, if it is already low – under the Core Sacrifice Model, it is unlikely to receive 

much “protection” anyway because it is not likely to be considered “core”. This sidesteps examination of functional local or

regional populations, and their trends, as described in Connelly et al. (2004), and Knick and Connelly (2009) Garton Chapter 

discussing the bleak trends in populations across the species’ range.

All Both emc0411GB

479. This flawed mitigation scheme imposes a Model upon a Model. The core scheme, and priority habitat sacrifice schemes are 

developed from a Model. Now a HEA model is being developed to further promote habitat loss. If BLM continues on this path, 

the extirpation of populations across many areas is very likely. Viable populations will be limited to fewer and fewer areas –

and the entire species thus will be more vulnerable to loss if large-scale unpredictable fire, rapid weed spread, insects, disease 

and/or other factors impact the increasingly fragmented remaining habitats. What occurs if leks blink out? Would BLM still 

consider the area to be managed for habitat protection? In relying on this flawed model, BLM appears to believe habitat can be 

frozen. There is no margin for error. As populations change –and change can be very rapid with habitat loss, will core areas 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-526 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

change? Since this is all based on a Model of percentages of birds contained within areas at present, the next time the numbers 

are run, some different areas might be Core Areas, and some current core areas not be included. An alarming part of this is 

this HEA analysis is that it apparently considers a loss of a bird, no matter where or how low a local population already to be, 

to be the same everywhere. “... a bird in Wyoming is equivalent to one in Idaho; an acre of habitat in WY is worth as much 

in Idaho; etc.”. This, sadly, reflects the continuin mindset of BLM – that sage-grouse and sagebrush landscapes are disposable. 

That a population in one area can be greatly stressed –or wiped out altogether, and this is always ok because there are some 

sage-grouse somewhere else.

480. Disturbance Calculation. This focuses on non-grazing anthropogenic disturbances only (see J-3) - using the same categories as 

the BLM IM (transmission lines, distribution lines, wind development, and oil and gas/facilities, geothermal, communication 

towers, pipelines, paved roads, and others”). It is also to take into account “approved permits” – but it is unclear if this 

includes leases – often held by speculators and others. (See discussion elsewhere). Then, the HEA calculates “existing and 

allowable suitable habitat disturbance”. Here, the HEA lapses back to the Idaho Sage Grouse Plan Model – i.e. pre-core 

modeling habitat categories that are: Key, potential restoration area type 1 (R1),Potential restoration Area Type - Perennial 

grasslands. R2), Potential restoration area Type 2 – annual grasslands, Potential restoration area Type 3 – conifer 

encroachment. The HEA model itself is a great disappointment. While the first page describes the need to consider cumulative 

and indirect effects and, and analysis of sage-grouse population within 18 km. – the model is a failure and does not do so.

All BLM emc0411GB

481. The Forest has failed to conduct current honest capability and suitability analyses. Instead, as in the Ely Westside EIS, claimed 

that areas of steep, rugged, limestone outcropping topography in the pinyon-juniper zone were “capable” of supporting 

livestock – in defiance of reality. Such claims, never really explained, could only be based on the hopes of deforesting the lands 

someday. But even if the lands were deforested and desertified and made vulnerable to weed infestation – the combination of 

slope, rocks/cliffs and other topographic features would make it impossible to graze livestock. This also highlights the lack of 

benefit of many proposed and completed deforestation projects that the agencies are claiming would somehow benefit 

sage-grouse. Sage-grouse don’t use steep, rugged slopes – no matter how many trees the forest burns or masticates. The 

Forest, in all of these EIS processes, instead of conducting a valid current analysis, simply claimed that the old Forest Plan from 

1986 adequately dealt with Suitability. So of the over half a million acres of the Ely Westside lands, all but three thousand or 

so acres (tiny campgrounds and RNAs) were all found to be suitable for continued livestock grazing disturbance. The half 

million acre affected lands include the habitat of the vanishing Quinn PMU as well as the White Pine PMU where some leks still 

persist, including in portions of the even the 2010 Doherty Core-mapped areas. Thus, even where grouse are in serious 

trouble (Quinn) or a population still has some birds but is declining like White Pine and threatened by expanding mining, and

new powerline development (SWIP), agencies refused to take needs of sage-grouse into account.

All Both emc0411GB

482. Breeding Bird Density analyses rank leks by attendance (highest to lowest number of males), and sum males until a percent is 

met. With lek locations and abundance being large drivers in the model, BDD results are, by definition, “largely correlated 

with breeding habitat”. Incorporation of other important seasonal habitat information (e.g. fall, winter, late brood, where 

available) “will provide additional rigor to the model”. P. 4. This again shows why artificial segregation of habitat into priority 

and general sacrifice habitats is deeply flawed. Necessary site-specific data on sage-grouse use of the landscape needed to 

prevent catastrophic blunder by agencies in omitting habitats are often not available for the little-studied fall, winter, migration, 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-527

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

brood rearing, and other habitats. There are two BDD models: Doherty uses a 10 year period. 2001-2010. Idaho looked at 

the most recent average maximum counts, and a minimum male count, with a more restricted model of 2006- 2010. More and 

more intensive efforts by agencies to make repeated counts at leks, including in part to maximize the number of birds counted, 

have been occurring in recent years. Leks in the 1-75% BDD range were buffered by 6.4 km. (only 4 miles). Those in 76-100% 

were buffered by 8.5 km. (5.3 miles) based on Wyoming Doherty research.

483. BLM should abandon this flawed core approach and the priority vs. general sacrifice of sagebrush and restoration habitat, and

all the other Modeling upon Modeling contortions the agency is going through. Agencies must devote their time and scarce 

funds determining how sage-grouse actually use the landscape, and identifying areas, and developing a systematic plan for real 

habitat restoration and species recovery instead of conducting office cubicle modeling exercises. This all highlights the need 

to abandon the Core Model and the core-derived Priority sagebrush habitat Sacrifice Models, and act to protect all remaining 

sagebrush habitats, or at a very minimum - all occupied habitats and other habitats identified as necessary for increasing 

abundance and distribution of the species across the biome. This is necessary to provide for adequate habitat in the face of 

sudden large-scale or unpredictable losses such as wildfires, sagebrush die-off, periods of exceptionally harsh weather, etc.

All BLM emc0411GB

484. A complete accounting of pre-2007 fires vs. current leks, activity, and bird numbers should be provided. The same thing must 

occur in areas of Wyoming, Montana, Utah, etc. that have undergone large-scale energy development. How do 

pre-development and post-development leks, numbers, activity, etc. compare? This must be systematically examined for not 

just 1 or 2 years following severe disturbance or development – but over longer periods of time necessary to understand 

effects on this relatively long-lived bird species.

All Both emc0411GB

485. We have described in detail many ecological and management concerns with the core-derived PGH and PGH models. We 

believe it is necessary to look critically at the origin of these methods. We request that BLM fully examine these concerns, 

including through use of outside ecological PEER review by researchers from other fields with fresh eyes.

All Both emc0411GB

486. The Core concept only appears to consider direct physical loss of habitat. Allowing 5% (under the NTT 3%) additional direct 

physical disturbance can render the Core area unsuitable.The Core Model, and the Priority Habitat derivative sacrifice a 

significant number of nest sites, and areas where nesting may be most productive. Plus the core Model cuts out some leks 

altogether. Perhaps such a Habitat and Population Sacrifice might be somewhat effective in a vast uniform landscape of 

sagebrush facing little change. But it makes no biological sense to impose such a significant habitat sacrifice model on 

sage-grouse, a species that is already facing severe habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation. In many parts of the species 

range, there is also a significant degree of natural habitat fragmentation – such as Basin and Range topography as existing 

background fragmentation. Drawing a circle around a lek/lek cluster does not take into consideration the quality of the habitat 

within that circle – a large part of which may be significantly degraded, or naturally non-sagebrush habitat (cliffs, steep, densely 

forested, or a combination of all of these factors). It also assumes uniform proper” habitat nesting conditions, i.e. that quality 

habitat of some kind that supports good nesting opportunities exists in much or all of the circle. Applying conservation 

theories derived (based on limited studies) from work in the much more “continuous” sagebrush habitats of Wyoming where 

leks may have been much larger and/or more abundant than leks across the rest of the range of sage-grouse would sacrifice a 

significant proportion of the nesting habitat, including the habitat that may in fact be most productive. This cannot be 

reasonably expected to be to sufficient to conserve a landscape species in decline. Plus the natural heterogeneity, diverse 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-528 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

topography and vegetation types of Basin and Range and other mountainous topography means that a circle drawn around a 

lek on an alluvial fan bordering a rugged range contains a large amount of non-habitat. The whole basis for this Doherty model 

falls apart here just based on natural background levels of habitat heterogeneity and fragmentation alone. This strategy has

not been proven to be effective. Researchers proposing it studied only small snapshots of time. Population analyses conducted 

several years after this 2005 work shows that sagegrouse declines are projected to continue across the species range.

487. A number of researchers have noted a time lag between initiation of mineral development and sage grouse population 

declines. Holloran et al. (2010) noted that yearling males avoided lekking near oil and gas infrastructure, and that yearling

females avoided nesting within 950m of oil and gas infrastructure. Thus, the time lag in populations appears to be driven by the 

exodus of yearlings from affected areas, while older birds persist close to development until they die off. These researchers

stated, “Our results...suggest to land managers that current stipulations on development ay not provide management 

solutions.”

All Both emc0343GB

488. Populations of sage grouse that are closer geographically tend to be closer genetically, indicating that individuals rarely move 

between non-neighboring populations (Oyler- McCance et al. 2005). Knick and Hanser (2010) suggested that a distance of 

11.2 miles or closer between leks promotes connectivity. The new Sage Grouse Plan Amendments should include provisions 

for designating Connectivity Areas as Priority Habitats in addition to Core Areas, particularly in parts of the range where Core 

or other Priority Habitats are potentially isolated from each other. The State of Wyoming has begun to address this need in 

the Powder River Basin under its Core Area plan, and it would be wise for the BLM to incorporate this feature into its plans 

throughout the sage grouse range. Under IM 2012-039, the BLM directs field offices to utilize a Crucial Habitat Assessment 

Tool (CHAT) or other available information sources to identify wildlife corridors and inform habitat management decisions. 

For the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion, the Heart of the West Conservation Plan (available online at 

http://www.voiceforthewild.org/Heart_of_the_West/HeartoftheWestPlan.pdf), constructed with sage grouse as a focal 

species, identifies some potential connectivity areas. See Attachment 6. We recommend that BLM consider additional 

connectivity zones identified under this plan, and designated corridors in Utah in Colorado based on the Core and Corridor 

recommendations of this plan. We incorporate the Heart of the West Plan into these comments by reference and ask the 

BLM to consider and respond to this plan as an integral part of these scoping comments.

All Both emc0343GB

489. Core Areas/Priority Habitats • Core habitats should be identified to encompass a 5-mile buffer around the most populous 

leks in each state. • Boundaries of core areas should not be altered to accommodate nonconforming uses.

All Both emc0343GB

490. There is a concern that lek locations may change to some degree over time. This could occur due to environmental changes 

such as fire, or from direct, indirect or cumulative effects of human-caused or exacerbated disturbances, effects of chronic 

habitat degradation and desertification, effects of exotic weed invasions, many of which are amplified by climate change effects. 

Weather conditions may also factor into abundance of birds at lek sites – with snow depth or other factors causing shifts in 

numbers at leks from one area to another area within the local population’s habitat range. Areas cut out of Core Habitat 

under this sacrifice model, but that represent, due to changes large or small, important remaining sites for sage-grouse will be 

allowed to be destroyed under this Core and Priority habitat sacrifice scheme. The cumulative effects of disturbances may 

reduce bird use in areas where numbers had been highest. For example, an existing minor road may have received minimal 

spring and winter traffic. Then a mine or industrial wind farm is built just outside (or under the Core and NTT Priority model 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-529

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

even inside) “priority” or general habitat. The traffic on the existing road near a complex of leks dramatically increases, 

roadside blading promotes weed invasion of understory, and chronic grazing disturbance promotes weed spread into 

surrounding nesting habitats. Plus grazing herds of sheep and cattle also get imposed on the area under a new grazing rotation 

scheme. The combination of disturbance intrudes on lek locations and surrounding nesting habitats. Habitat quality declines 

even more. As bird abundance in an area changes, this would then shift the center of the Core Model circle in one direction 

or another. Or an area might no longer even fit the arbitrary percentage categories of bird abundance/population percentage 

being applied to define an area as Core Habitat. Over the course of time, will numbers dwindle at the former high abundance 

leks, and numbers increase at others several miles distant – so that what was once “marginal” leks and habitats are now all that 

is left for the birds – and these areas have the misfortune of lying near or outside the former artificial circle drawn around leks? 

Plus how much might snow depth and snow persistence in various years affect the use of leks? Can the low and increasingly 

fragmented and discontinuous existing populations that are found over nearly all the sage-grouse range really tolerate a 

Core/Priority/Sacrifice scheme that enables continued destruction and degradation and fragmentation/intrusions into 

sagebrush habitats? An honest, detailed, fully transparent analysis of this scheme must be conducted by an independent panel

of ecological scientists. This model does not reflect the dynamic nature of natural systems, which is kind of “background” here, 

on top of which is super-imposed all manner of human-caused disturbances. For example, in the early-mid-2000s, significant 

sagebrush die-off occurred in areas of northern Nevada, Utah and some portions of southern Idaho. Aroga moth infestations 

(sagebrush defoliators - and severe defoliation can kill sagebrush) and drought were at the time proposed as possible causes. 

Some BLM Managers a couple years later had stated that they were seeing big fires (as in Nevada Owyhee) in areas that had 

suffered sagebrush die-off. Just as with wildfire, it is unpredictable where and when sagebrush die-off, drought, or other factors 

will alter components of the sagebrush habitat required by sage-grouse, or how this might exacerbate fire risk.

491. Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, western Montana, eastern California just do not have the continuous expanses of sagebrush that 

Wyoming, up until very recently, had. Plus Wyoming has for decades boasted about its great abundance of sage-grouse –

including high numbers of birds on leks. So imposing Westwide a 4 or 5 mile diameter Core areas, or an 11 square mile block 

of habitat figure as sufficient to protect sage-grouse, with these modeled areas derived from a Wyoming situation very unlike 

the great majority of the range of sage-grouse at present, just does not make any biological sense. It has not been tested over 

time. It’s just a modeled guess. It is not acceptable for agencies to base conservation planning on findings in a landscape unlike 

the naturally fragmented Basin and Range topography. An 11 mile figure has been used by some parties to describe a 

minimum area to theoretically support a viable population. But that assumes fairly uniform sagebrush habitats of some 

reasonable quality in that 11 square mile area – a situation that simply does not exist across much of the West, especially in 

2012. And when the sagebrush habitats themselves are often greatly altered, and stressed by grazing which acts synergistically 

with weeds and fire. Uniform blocks of habitat never existed in many areas to begin with, when the effects of natural habitat 

fragmentation/naturally unsuitable habitats like rocky slopes/canyons, cliff, forested areas, playas, etc are factored in as well. 

Agencies must prepare models of population viability – based on potential losses of all or part of Core/Priority habitats in key 

areas due to various factors. They must full consider the unpredictable and dynamic nature of environment, and environmental 

changes.

All Both emc0411GB

492. There is little flexibility in this approach. A circle drawn around a lek in 2012, while adjacent areas of intact sagebrush are All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-530 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sacrificed as “general” habitat and then “developed” in the Interim or as an outcome of this process, will lead to a loss of 

options for conservation, restoration areas, and adaptation. There are many unknown factors that argue against the sacrifice 

of habitats as proposed under the core/sacrifice model and its derivative – the priority, general, and no restoration habitat 

mapping. For example, an Ulmschneider report comparing lek flights conducted over the same area separated by 4 or 5 years 

found large differences in the location of leks being used. This also cites a Salmon, ID also observing variation in lek sites. 

Unless there is a very large and robust population, this approach is very likely to be disastrous. If the affected population is 

already declining and/or further declines are expected, (as nearly all populations are, see Garton et al. 2009 in Knick and 

Connelly 2009, 2011), then how can conceding to losses of habitat for 20% of nests – including the most successful nesting 

sites, be biologically acceptable? It can’t.

493. Chapter 21, Studies in Avian Biology. Energy development and conservation tradeoffs: systematic planning for Greater 

Sage-Grouse in their eastern range - Kevin E. Doherty, David E. Naugle, Holly Copeland, Amy Pocewicz, and Joseph Kiesecke. 

2009, 2011. This shows that development risk appears to be taken into account when deciding which habitats to not protect. 

Habitat restoration in areas with low risk of development but containing fewer sage-grouse fit into the overall conservation 

strategy by targeting populations that promote connectivity of core regions. This vulnerability assessment illustrates the 

tradeoffs between conservation and energy development, and provides a framework for maintaining populations across the 

species’ eastern range. So the Core model is at least in part based on not protecting some areas desired by industry. Plus the 

Core/Priority habitat sacrifice model scheme is not claimed to be appropriate for the western range. The eastern range 

contains less mountainous and rugged terrain – that imposes natural “breaks” or fragmentation in habitats, that is then further 

compounded by all the impacts of human development and agency management failures – as characterize the western range. 

Yet the BLM and states like Idaho are applying it universally.

All Both emc0411GB

494. It is urgent that we identify areas of high biological value and areas of potential future development to evaluate options for 

reducing impacts (Abbitt et al. 2000, Balmford et al. 2001 Wilson et al. 2005) given sage-grouse sensitivity to oil and gas 

development and the projected rate of increased development. We focused on identifying core regions of sage-grouse 

abundance to illustrate the process of risk assessment and to contrast opposing conservation strategies. But has the risk 

assessment and this paper’s methods provided changed or current population numbers for actual populations. This is 

necessary so that: 1)The viability of the population could be determined at present; 2) The viability of the population using a 

carved-up Core/Priority habitat sacrifice scheme approach can be understood; 3) The urgency and range of measures needed 

to conserve a habitat and/or population can be understood. This provides no current baseline of the degree of existing 

disturbance, or the disturbance that is likely to occur in the near future, and the mid and long term from these disturbances

plus other leases and commitments the federal government has made. It does not take into account lag time in adverse impacts 

of disturbance – such as progressive cheatgrass or other weed invasion. It does not take into account how chronic grazing 

disturbance may exacerbate problems – like weed invasions –initially caused by energy disturbances, for example. What 

really constitutes a viable or a sustainable population over time? For example, how could it be claimed that the isolated Dakota 

populations – or many populations that exist elsewhere – as in Utah today, could be viable unless dramatic changes are rapidly 

made? Or that the very small little circle of Priority habitat on Idaho mapping in the Pahsimeroi-Little Lost or south of Idaho 

Falls could sustain a viable population?

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-531

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

495. We restricted analyses to areas within the eastern distribution that were within sage-grouse management zone I (Great 

Plains—portions of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) and II (Wyoming 

Basin—portions of Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and Colorado) (Fig. 1; Connelly et al. 2004, Stiver et al. 2006) because 

these populations are experiencing the highest risk of energy development. All analyses presented evaluate the relative 

importance of an individual breeding area to all other breeding areas within these management zones (Fig. 1). Many of these 

populations referenced above in the eastern portion of sage-grouse range, occur in more homogeneous flat habitat and 

topography than the rugged, broken Basin and Range and other portions of the species range. Plus many populations, at least 

in Wyoming (based on long-standing claims of Wyoming Game and Fish), had far larger leks and far more abundant birds than 

other areas, as well.

All Both emc0411GB

496. We used the highest count during the 2005–2007 period because all leks are not counted each year but most are counted 

within a 3-yr interval. Since 2007, much energy development was unleashed in areas in Wyoming by existing or immediately

foreseeable BLM decisions such as the late-Bush era RMPs had not yet occurred. There is also a time lag between 

development and the full effects being seen n a population. Thus, the model’s conclusions appear based in part on populations

that had not yet suffered the full brunt of impacts of energy development.

All Both emc0411GB

497. The value of each grid cell is a function of the number and proximity of leks in the surrounding landscape. We attributed each 

cell with counts of males at leks within a radius of 6.4 km (4.0 mi). We chose this distance because nesting females distribute 

their nests spatially in relation to lek location with 79% of nests located within a 6.4 km (4.0 mi) radius from lek-of capture 

(Table B-1 in Colorado Division of Wildlife 2008). In some other areas, distances are much greater, and birds move over vast 

areas. Where is the modeling that shows what happens to a population if, in Colorado DOW instance cited here, 21% of the 

nesting habitat and all the wintering habitat outside this circle is developed? It ignores the different movement and landscape 

use characteristics of populations. It ignores that leks are typically located on snow-free areas, which are relatively lower 

elevation. Relatively lower elevation areas are most susceptible to cheatgrass and other weed invasions, and more difficult to 

recover. Just protecting nesting habitats closest to currently more abundant leks may be a large mistake as grazing-facilitated 

cheatgrass and climate change act synergistically to promote cheatgrass dominance of understories at lower elevations. It 

ignores analysis of climate change effects where snow-free areas may increasingly extend to higher elevations. Thus a shift in 

lek sites over time may occur and is very likely – but if the higher elevations are near the periphery or outside the little core 

lek circles altogether, the Doherty Core and BLM PPH modeling will have already sacrificed away these very habitats that are 

needed for sage-grouse population resiliency in the face of climate change.

All Both emc0411GB

498. We extended the radius from 6.4 to 8.5 km (5.3 mi; Holloran and Anderson 2005) for leks in 75 and 100% core regions 

because a post-hoc analysis indicated that 6.4 km was too small an area to contain simulated nest densities in lower density 

areas and fragmented habitats where a few leks were far apart (e.g., North and South Dakota; Table 1). Increasing the radius 

in 75 and 100% core regions provided more realistic estimates of the area needed to support breeding populations in low

abundance or fragmented landscapes. How do North and South Dakota landscapes differ from many areas in the western 

portion of sage-grouse range?

All Both emc0411GB

499. Conservation planning also requires that areas identified with high value have the ability to persist over time (Groves et al. 

2002). We conducted a series of GIS overlays of biological values of sagegrouse with the potential for energy development to 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-532 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

frame the opportunities and challenges facing sage-grouse ... What about habitat quality? The trajectory of degradation? 

How did this deal with lag time for effects of existing development, new development, and chronic ongoing disturbances like 

livestock grazing to play out – including synergistically – in promoting weeds, mesopredators, and human intrusions disturbing 

birds? To understand the modeling exercise, all of this needs to spelled out. Or was this just areas where leases had not been 

issued yet, and that still were relatively intact?

500. If an area did not have a lek within 8.5 km (Holloran and Andersen 2005), it was not assigned a biological value because we did 

not have information on other seasonal habitats. We considered an area to have high potential for energy development if it 

had either an authorized oil or gas lease from the federal government or showed potential for commercial wind production 

(Fig. 2). Areas excluded from the high potential category were classified as having low potential for energy development. 

Energy development potential was identified, and some of these areas, apparently, were excluded from consideration. This is 

all very alarming for a model that claims to be conserving a landscape species.

All Both emc0411GB

501. Core regions contained 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the breeding population within 5, 12, 30, and 60% of the eastern sage-grouse 

high-density areas (Fig. 1), largest number of leks, highest male sage-grouse abundance at leks, and the broadest species’ 

distribution among the six states within our study area (Table 1). Does this allow a percentage of birds connected to larger 

populations but where leks may not be as large/abundant to be chopped off into a sacrifice habitat category? If so, this further 

severs the connection between populations.

All Both emc0411GB

502. Areas of low biological value and low energy potential (19% of eastern range, Fig. 3) represent low conflict opportunities for 

sage-grouse. Our analyses document the importance of these areas in maintaining connectivity to high value core regions in 

Montana (Fig. 3). Core regions with low biological value and low energy potential will be important in this regard, with 

restoration being one of the key strategies ... So this appears to be sacrificing areas important for connectivity if the habitat 

has high energy potential. How is “low biological value” being determined? By only relying on sage-grouse? Needs of a whole 

suite of other species may be minimized. See, for example, ICBEMP Wisdom Terrestrial Vertebrate analyses (2002) and 

species groups/suites. Agencies must apply integrated conservation planning, and not sacrifice other habitats, or displace 

damaging grazing like grazing into other habitats that are important for other rare or declining species.

All Both emc0411GB

503. Recent experience has shown the difficulty of maintaining numbers of Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus; 

Oyler-McCance et al. 2005a) and Lesser Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus; Hagen et al. 2004) when only small and 

fragmented populations remain. Sage-grouse have already been lost from half of their former range (Schroeder et al. 2004), 

and many of the low-value and low-potential areas identified in this analysis are the same areas where continued range 

contraction is expected to be most severe (Aldridge et al. 2008). Fringe populations in the Dakotas, Montana, and Canada 

need to pursue aggressive habitat restoration programs if they hope to maintain their biological value. Programs should focus

on restoring adjacent lands presently in tillage agriculture to sagebrush-dominated grasslands in addition to enhancing existing 

native habitats. There is no analysis or data provided of how low these prairie chicken numbers already were, how 

fragmented the habitat already was, how much (or how little) public land was involved, so that there could be a rigorous 

comparison between their situation and the situation currently facing sage-grouse populations that are summarily being 

segregated and sacrificed. This must be done before modelers just run a program and say “We should forget about these 

grouse over here”. An example of a population of a small isolated population of sage-grouse persisting is the Weiser 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-533

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

population. This population is not hunted (hunting was removed decades ago to protect a small population of sharptailed 

grouse), and there are some expanses of CRP lands that are not grazed. How many birds are present, and how has this 

changed over time? It looks like these parties are already writing populations across large areas off, and are in fact enabling 

these losses in these habitat sacrifice models. We are increasingly concerned about Oil and Gas and other industry funding of

research, and the kind of results and modeling and interpretation of data that may come out of large reliance on industry 

funding.

504. The BLM-commissioned paper states that: “Each of 11 states containing sage grouse have enough birds across multiple 

landscapes to meet the 75% breeding density threshold” (at 2) What does this mean? There are two places in each state for 

there to be core populations? Does this take into the account the extremely low numbers in NE California for example Clear 

Lake, Likely Tablelands, and the various nearly extirpated Bi-State PMUs – i.e. all Mono PMUs except Bodie? This admits that 

“risks and opportunities vary dramatically between states”. Where and how are risks identified? Is “High abundance 

population” defined relative to a population in each state – or was this based on populations that span states, too? “We used 

max count data from leks (n= 4,885) to delineate high abundance population centers that contain 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the 

known breeding populations” (at 2).

All Both emc0411GB

505. p. 3 [of the Doherty report] admits it is “conservation triage”, discussing triage vs. palliative care. This evaluates the relative 

importance of an individual breeding area to all other breeding areas. Is this all other breeding areas range-wide. This used data 

from 2000 to 2009. P. 6. Provided a maximum lek count for each year the lek was surveyed in the last 10 years. p. 6 appears 

to show bias towards showing higher populations. p. 7. Authors assigned an abundance-weighted density (based on number 

of males) to each lek, then summed the number of males until a given percent population threshold was reached. Used outer 

boundaries around leks of Holloran et al. 2005. Extended boundaries from 6.4 to 8.5 km for leks in 75% and 100% core 

regions. “Increasing the radius in 75 and 100% core regions provided more realistic estimates of the areas needed to support 

breeding populations in low abundance or fragmented habitats”. When one looks at the long distances routinely moved by 

grouse in the Jarbidge, a fragmented habitat with low abundance in many areas now- it becomes clear that a much greater 

distance is needed for some fragmented populations. The colors “represent the smallest area necessary to contain 25, 50, 

75, and 100% of the nesting populations”.

All Both emc0411GB

506. The [Doherty] Model was replicated in many ways –but was it replicated based on real biologically connected populations? It 

appears that the replications were Rangewide, Management Zones and states. State abundance was highly clumped – but this 

may be due to snow-free areas in spring, topography and veg zones including elevational changes. Doherty et al. claim this is 

a common starting place. For what? An unproven model that benefits the Oil and Gas and other industry? There is no solid 

evidence presented that this will result in viable or sustainable populations. Where are the actual numbers of birds per lek? 

Birds per population? How were populations defined? Where is this data? Didn’t the Garton et al. 2009 analysis find that all 

populations - based on examining functional populations not state lines or the diversionary VMZs – were declining? Where is 

any alternative view presented? The common place should be all remaining sagebrush habitat, especially in areas that have 

already lost so much – such as Idaho where vast areas of the Snake River Plain have been eliminated as habitat. This is just a 

model that chops off habitats, ignoring the population model predictions in Knick and Connelly et al. 2009/2011 Garton 

Chapter. It was developed in continuous sagebrush habitats of Wyoming -with artificial percentages placing distance ceilings 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-534 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

measured outward in a circle from a center point at a lek. This industry-friendly modeling appears to be part of efforts to 

strip away and forget about any concept of “historic range” from ESA considerations for sagebrush species. This more readily 

enables largescale destruction of many habitats and populations. Not only does it ignore the loss of 50% (or more) of historic 

range – it promotes sacrifice and development of vast areas of remaining sagebrush habitats within the tattered range that 

remains. This paper continues the modeling exercise that sacrifices habitats, and is divorced in many ways from the full 

habitat needs of a long-lived, landscape bird like sage-grouse. The use of this sacrifice model ignores the trajectory of all 

populations. See Garton et al. 2009/2011 Studies in Avian Biology Chapter 6 on population trajectories. What sense does it 

make –with a species on a downward trajectory to use a “conservation strategy” based almost solely on some percentage of 

birds censused on leks, and not the full suite of habitats that they use? Given the trajectories of all the populations, as found 

in Garton et al., how it this Core Model likely to be effective in sustaining sage-grouse populations? Garton et al. conducted an 

analysis of sage-grouse populations throughout the species range, based on actual populations identified in Connelly et al. 

2004. It was based on leks censused each year. 23 populations had sufficient data to model annual rates of population change. 

The study forecast future population viability across 23 populations, 7 MZs, and the range-wide metapopulation. The model 

forecast that 13% of the populations but none of the SMZs may decline below effective population sizes of 50 within the next 

30 yrs. First, is 50 birds a viable population? Aren’t many more than 500 birds required for a viable population? What would

these percentages be if 500, 1000, or 5000 sage-grouse were used as a minimum viable population? Second, this shows how 

the floristic SMZs are being used – i.e. to dilute and mask accounting of sage-grouse loss.

507. But even given this, Garton et al. was conducted without cutting off the non-core habitats and populations. How would the 

Garton et. al analysis have differed if the Core Model was used, and noncore area leks assumed to suffer steep losses, including 

slicing off portions of the population where leks are low in number? Garton et al. 2009 found that 75% of the populations and 

29% of the SMZs are likely to decline below effective population sizes of 500 within 100 yr. So here, Garton et all pretty much 

admit that the 50 birds used earlier was much too low a number to even begin to consider viable. Again, SMZs are a 

diversionary category with no real relevance to sage-grouse. This is being used to help mask declines by lumping separate and 

isolated populations together with a relatively larger population. We also note that these models were based on population 

estimates from leks censused 1987-2007. These lek counts are from before the period when the effects of the 2007 wildfires 

in the Great Basin Core Area would be felt.

All Both emc0411GB

508. Also, there are multiple uses of “Core”. Doherty et al, propose allowing the Wyoming and Great Basin Core habitats to suffer 

significant sacrifice of habitat. There is another, earlier and long-standing use of “core populations”, Connelly et al. 2004 . And

then the Doherty et al. Core Area sacrifice model that allows significant areas of Wyoming Core population Habitat to be 

sacrificed –i.e. areas where leks are not most abundant or have not been as intensively tracked. So Doherty and the BLM’s 

Priority general, non-habitat scheme now being imposed in reality punch holes in the 2004 Connelly et al. Core populations. 

If populations are in trouble, as Garton et al. demonstrated, it makes no sense to impose a Core Model that chops off huge 

blocks of sagebrush habitat. Doherty model promotes and continues the idea of large areas of sagebrush as a disposable 

landscape. “Population viability analysis is inherently problematic ... as a model cannot be proven to provide reliable 

predictions for conditions outside the range of variables used to develop the model”. “Many of the dominant influences on 

sage-grouse populations, such as habitat changes associated with development, are under resource management agency 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-535

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

control, and it is possible future trajectories could be altered to benefit sage-grouse”. The Core Model worsens the situation 

by sacrificing habitats and portions of the effective population – often even of birds connected to core areas, but with fewer 

birds on leks.

509. Garton et al discuss potential trajectories, describing cheatgrass invasion and conifers, energy development, West Nile, and 

the unprecedented rapidity of change. There is no discussion of livestock grazing as a causal factor for cheatgrass, conifer 

expansion due to livestock degradation of understories (see Belsky and Blumenthal 1998), livestock facilities and trampling of 

wetted area margins promoting West Nile virus, and other factors. Their models included declining carrying capacities, 

supporting evidence for a continuing decline in quality and quantity of sage-grouse habitat. The model predictions of declines 

are under-estimates because there was only sufficient data for 24 populations. Their data suggested that smaller populations 

have suffered greater declines and tend to be at greater risk than larger populations. The Doherty Core and BLM derivative 

Priority model, with focus on lek-based higher population centers – casts aside or sacrifices habitats for many of these smaller 

populations. The Garton et al. discussion then shifts back to the floristic SMZs likely to try to sound less alarming. We stress 

that this population analysis di not include many smaller populations – because there was not enough data!

All Both emc0411GB

510. Garton et al discuss potential trajectories, describing cheatgrass invasion and conifers, energy development, West Nile, and 

the unprecedented rapidity of change. There is no discussion of livestock grazing as a causal factor for cheatgrass, conifer 

expansion due to livestock degradation of understories (see Belsky and Blumenthal 1998), livestock facilities and trampling of 

wetted area margins promoting West Nile virus, and other factors. Their models included declining carrying capacities, 

supporting evidence for a continuing decline in quality and quantity of sage-grouse habitat. The model predictions of declines 

are under-estimates because there was only sufficient data for 24 populations. Their data suggested that smaller populations 

have suffered greater declines and tend to be at greater risk than larger populations. The Doherty Core and BLM derivative 

Priority model, with focus on lek-based higher population centers – casts aside or sacrifices habitats for many of these smaller 

populations. The Garton et al. discussion then shifts back to the floristic SMZs likely to try to sound less alarming. We stress 

that this population analysis di not include many smaller populations – because there was not enough data!

All Both emc0411GB

511. BLM in this sage-grouse EIS process must report on the status all of the populations and subpopulations identified in Connelly 

et al. 2004 and the condition of the habitats (quality and quantity). This must be done immediately so that prompt action can

take place to address populations at high risk. Urgent action is needed. The existing and foreseeable threats that these 

populations face must be detailed. The Connelly et al. 2004 functional populations include: Baker OR Bannack MT Belt 

Mountains, MT Central OR E Fairfield CO Eagle/S Routt CO East Tavaputs E-Central ID Great Basin Core – Central NV 

E-Central OR Lake Area OR/NE CA/NW NV N-Central NV/SE OR/SW ID NE NV/S-Central ID-MW UT S-Central 

OR-N-Central NV SE NV/SW UT Jackson Hole WY Klamath OR/CA Laramie WY Middle Park CO Gunn Moses Coulee WA 

MT/ND/NW SD N Mono Lake CA/NV NE Interior UT Northern Montana AB/SK/MT N-Central MT S-Central SK/MT 

NW-Interior NV Piceance CO Pine Nut NV Quinn Canyon Range NV Red Rock MT S Mono Lake CA S White River UT 

Sanpete/Emery Sawtooth ID S-Central UT Snake, Salmon, and Beaverhead N Side Snake Big Lost ID Upper Snake ID Little 

Lost ID Lemhi-Birch ID Summit-Morgan UT Tooele-Juab UT Twin Bridges MT Warm Springs Valley BC Weiser, ID White 

River Mountains NV/CA White River CO Wisdom MT Wyoming Basin Fall River SD/E Edge WY North Park CO S-Central 

MT/N-Central WY S-Central WY/N-N-Central CO NE WY/SE MT SW WY/NW CO/NE UT/SE ID Dinosaur UT-CO 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-536 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Yakima WA Yellowstone watershed Central MT E Interior MT/NE tip WY Note: Gunnison is included in list, but are not 

part of this process.

512. Agencies must also fully indicate where the entire species range has shrunk or contracted, and where there is significant risk 

this will occur. We are greatly concerned that no data was provided on these populations as part of Scoping or detailed in the 

USFWS WBP Finding. Several smaller populations continue to be largely ignored (example - NDOW in 2010 a shown by the 

Forest Service Ely Westside EIS record with the Quinn Canyon Range population).

All Both emc0411GB

513. Intensive site-specific studies must be conducted. Detailed maps showing each of these populations and sub-populations and 

all important habitats necessary to support viable populations must be examined in detail before any habitat carving scheme 

can even be considered.

All Both emc0411GB

514. The Core Area approach, focusing primarily on conservation for a limited distance from known leks, will lead to further 

degradation of more remote nesting areas – where birds might have higher nesting success, as at times has been documented. 

Information long available on sage-grouse ecology, nesting characteristics, sensitivity to disturbance, low reproductive rate, 

need for habitat security over all seasons of the year - all expose severe flaws in the Core/Priority and General Sacrifice 

Models. Yet BLM in adopting its recent IMs has imposed a habitat segregation and habitat sacrifice scheme on all the lands that 

it manages (except in WA state and the Bi-State area) without any NEPA analysis or broad scientific analysis that would show 

flaws or concerns posed by this habitat sacrifice scheme. Below we excerpt just some sections from the Status Review and 

Petition to List the Greater Sage Grouse, (Salvo) that must be taken into consideration: The primary cause of nest loss is 

predation (DeLong, et al. 1995). Sage grouse nests experience significantly higher predation when more densely spaced 

(Niemuth 1992, Niemuth and Boyce 1995). Thus, habitat fragmentation, degradation, or conversion, which concentrates 

nesting females into smaller areas, will cause higher mortality at this critical time in the life history. Renesting is low in sage 

grouse (Connelly, et al. 1993, p. 1042; Hanf, et al. 1994) ... Also: Of the hens losing their nests, only 15% will renest (BLM 

1999c). Subsequent nests, if attempted at all, have few eggs and reduced success (Hulet 1983). Clutch sizes of second nestings 

are reported to be only 4 to 7 eggs (GBCP 1997, p. 3). These findings point out the importance of preventing disturbance to 

nesting sage grouse. Bergerud (1988b) also reviewed two studies on renesting rates in sage grouse, finding it to average 42%. 

Other studies have found renesting rates to be about 10% (Patterson 1952c, Autenrieth 1981). Finally, Bergerud (1988b, p. 

606, Fig. 15.13) found that higher densities of males were related to lower juveniles per adult in sage grouse. This effect has 

conservation implications: as birds are crowded into smaller and smaller habitat fragments, population productivity can be 

expected to decline. All of the long-known information about sage-grouse biology, life history traits and ecology – argues 

against the Core Area Habitat Sacrifice approach as a valid basis for conservation of sage-grouse. In fact, it seems most 

designed to wipe out sage-grouse over significant portions of the species occupied species’ range where populations are 

relegated to General or Non Habitat categories, and even portions of contiguous populations are sacrificed because lek 

numbers are not the highest.

All Both emc0411GB

515. A recent paper by Fedy et al. “Interseasonal movements of greater sage-grouse migratory behavior, and an assessment of the 

core regions Concept in Wyoming”, found much individual variation in the distances birds move, birds moving over very long 

distances, and variation in bird movement between areas. All of this variation was in the more uniform, less fragmented 

Wyoming state sagebrush habitats. The core concept captured leks, but did not identify summer and winter locations as 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-537

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

well. The average nest-winter movement was 14.4 km. The paper cautions that sage-grouse require an adequate amount and 

juxtaposition of all seasonal habitats for populations to persist ... The Abstract must be read with caution when it states 

that across Wyoming, the sage-grouse breeding core regions still contained a relatively high percentage of summer and winter 

locations and claims the core areas are a reasonable surrogate when no other information exists. But doesn't a lot of 

information in Wyoming, due to the plague of recent energy development, indeed exist? If not, BLM should have gathered the 

information before imposing the habitat sacrifice scheme. But the paper contains no population viability analyses. Or the 

effects to populations of habitat losses in occupied habitats omitted from non-core areas. What effect would loss of habitats 

outside the core area for each of the populations in this study have on the core populations over time? Unless such concerns 

are taken into account, there appears to be little basis for claiming that all might be well in using the core concept if nothing 

else is known.

516. The Core Model/Priority approach in reality is a Blueprint enabling large-scale development. This is the antithesis of the way 

that conservation should be applied in arid western landscapes, where all vegetation communities are under stress from 

human disturbance and climate change. Under this flawed Core-Priority model, mining energy and other development can 

have a free-for-all with mountain ranges and salt desert valleys. While WWP believes that sagebrush habitat conservation is 

critical, a model that essentially Zones lands into Sacrifice Zones, and into Priority habitat with expanded development 

allowed even in Priority areas, while largely unfettered development occurs everywhere else, cannot provide for effective 

conservation.

All Both emc0411GB

517. We request that BLM abandon the Core-derived Priority and General Habitat segregation scheme with the separate and 

unequal treatment that accompanies it.

All BLM emc0411GB

518. Full baseline information must be acquired on sage-grouse use of all components of the landscape. All Both emc0411GB

519. I have observed over the course of many years that sage-grouse populations fluctuate and did so even during the years of 

highest populations. This occurs in many species such as jackrabbits, chukars, etc.

All Both flj0003gb

520. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should identify year-round habitat requirements for sagegrouse by state or region, 

and not solely focus on breeding habitat, since many populations are migratory. 

area covered in your proposal and the wide ranging implications throughout these western states. 

these laws to help protect not only the greater sage-grouse but the fragile environment they and a host of other animals, birds, 

insects and humans and reptiles call home.

All Both flk0005gb

521. The Final Environmental Impact Statement should identify year-round habitat requirements for sage-grouse by state or region, 

and not solely focus on breeding habitat, since many populations are migratory.

All Both flk0000gb

522. The BLM should focus the strongest protections on the most important sage-grouse habitats, which is often where the largest

number of grouse are found; this increases chances for success. The BLM should protect a large enough area of priority 

habitat, to maintain AND increase sage-grouse populations.

All bln fln0000RM

523. 4. To be effective, BLM should address all threats to sage-grouse. Each plan must adequately protect greater sage-grouse from 

all threats (e.g. construction of transmission lines, energy development, roads, wildfires and invasive weeds).

All BLM fln0000gm

524. Restore greater sage-grouse homes and focus on ecosystem integrity: The greater sage-grouse inhabits a vast area of All Both fld0000rm, 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-538 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sagebrush steppe important to America's natural heritage. Unfortunately these lands have been heavily degraded. The BLM 

and FS should use this planning and revision process both to protect and restore the sage-grouse, and to restore the iconic 

sagebrush landscape of the American west and the many species which depend on it

fld0000gb

525. Only by requiring the strongest protective measures when considering new development proposals in sage-grouse habitat will 

you be able to ensure survival of this spectacular species. To that end, I ask that you require the following conservation 

measures in the relevant Resource Management Plans and Land Management Plans. - Identify and protect important and/or 

intact greater sage-grouse habitats and identify locations of priority areas on which to focus conservation actions to maintain 

the function of sagebrush ecosystems (priority sage-grouse habitat).

All Both flb0000gb

526. Identify priority habitat that includes breeding, brooding, and winter habitat necessary to support and expand the sage grouse 

population.

All Both flf0000gb 

flf0000rm

527. This can be accomplished by designating priority and general habitat areas as recommended by the Sage-Grouse National 

Technical Team (NTT) and implementing recommendations in the NTT sage-grouse report in each land use plan. The Report 

on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures improves upon prior management recommendations for the 

species (including the Wyoming Core Habitat Model), but should be augmented with additional information to develop the 

best strategy for conserving sage-grouse and their habitat.

All Both flc0000gb

528. The planning process should include the Mono Basin and Columbia Basin Distinct Population Segments of sage-grouse All Both flc0000gb

529. I am writing to support the Sage Grouse Recovery Alternative submitted by the conservation community. This recovery 

alternative would require the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service to identify priority sage grouse habitat that 

includes breeding, brooding and winter habitats necessary to support and expand the sage grouse population; measures that 

truly meet the agencies' stated goals.

All Both flg0000gb, 

flg0000rm

530. apply these measures for all sage grouse populations on public lands including Mono Basin populations in the 

California-Nevada bi-state area and the Washington state populations.

All Both flg0000gb 

flg0000rm

531. Any EIS or SEIS developed must also recognize and incorporate the extensive research that has already been conducted by the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on the complimentary relationship between sage-grouse 

conservation and grazing. According to NRCS, “the same factors that negatively affect sage-grouse also negatively affect the 

health, productivity, and sustainability of native grazing lands. Therefore, improvements to benefit sage-grouse also benefit 

grazing lands and the ranchers that depend on them.”

All Both fli0000gb

532. And management standards must be based on the best available science. not on myths, falsified data nor hasty anti-science 

drawn up by fossil fuel advocates . Federal planners must ensure that all planning documents make the same prescriptions for 

land uses across all sage-grouse range.

All Both FLC0016GB

533. The sage-grouse, and other ground birds, are necessary to control the tick population, especially the deer-tick which carries 

Lyme Disease, and is spreading like an epidemic. This makes these birds incredibly important in each of their environments

All Both fld0001rm, 

fld0001gb

534. Agency review of new development proposals in the greater sage grouse range should be evaluated for impacts on the bird 

and ecosystem. Projects should be denied or conditioned on net benefit for the species and its habitat.

All Both fld0003rm, 

fld0003gb

535. Prohibit conversion of sagebrush habitat to any other use within priority sage-grouse habitat. All Both flb0000gb and 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-539

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

rm

536. No new fences, power lines, pipelines, roads, motorized trails, communications towers, water developments, or other 

infrastructure should be permitted in priority sage-grouse habitat.

All Both flb0000gb and 

rm

537. Pinto Valley Ranch covers over 10,000 acres with a substantial percentage of that area being included within the priority 

habitat area. The BLM maps show that the BLM owns the mineral rights under a significant portion of the Ranch that is 

designated as sage grouse priority habitat area. The Ranch is year-around home to a healthy population of sage-grouse and 

host several active leks as well as historical leks. In cooperation with both private biologists as well as multiple govemment 

agencies we have worked to create a conservation plan to improve habitats and, therefore, increase sage-grouse populations.

CO Both emc0059RM

538. Sage grollse lek locations, habitat quality, as well as how the birds move through these habitats changes through time, 

therefore, the ETS needs to account for these changes and allow for flexibility in the maps as well as the management 

strategies.

CO Both emc0059RM

539. We strongly urge the reclassification of isolated areas of "priority general habitat" that lie completely within priority habitat 

areas to include them within the surrounding priority habitat. The NTT document makes it a priority to "conserve, enhance 

or restore sage-grouse habitat and connectivity", it discusses how roads within the sage-grouse range lead to the 

fragmentation of habitat, and how mineral development and sage brush trcatments can also lead to the fragmentation of 

habitat. It's clear that fragmentation of habitat is a major issue and We believe modifying the map to retlect this would not only 

protect the integrity of the continuous uninterrupted priority habitat but also the corridors that connect habitats.

CO Both emc0059RM

540. We believe any man-made disturbances to the historical landscape should be included within the 3% calculation. This would 

include ground that was put into production (hay fields, etc.), and habitat that was inundated with water following the building 

of dams, included to the list provided within the NTT document.

CO Both emc0059RM

541. The 3% disturbance should be calculated within the priority habitat for a given lek and not the priority habitat as it is connected 

to other leks. Calculating the 3% this way will ensure that only disturbances within a 4 mile proximity will be included and not 

disturbances beyond that range.

CO Both emc0059RM

542. We don't believe offsite mitigation should be an option for allowing additional impacts to habitats that already meet or exceed 

the 3% threshold. Sage-grouse exhibit a high level of sight fidelity. To force the grouse to move to different habitats will lead 

to reduced populations.

CO Both emc0059RM

543. The maps created so quickly by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife, to show the "Preliminary Priority Habitat", 

were very well done with the time and resources available, however the areas of "Priority Habit" are marked with a very wide 

brush stroke. I agree that the lek and truly potential lek areas should be avoided with right-of-ways, roads and construction. 

But realistically, the area within the marked locations is very diverse habitat: rock ridges, pinion/juniper cover, canyons ... that 

are not suitable sage grouse habitat -- habitat that should not be restricted simply because the broad stroke on the maps 

shows that the area is "Priority Habitat". On this note the suggested 4 mile buffer to be avoided -- or at times even a 1/4 mile 

buffer (.06 miles), around "Priority Habitat" is very unrealistic, as again, the terrain and vegetation drasticaUy change. Each case 

should be evaluated site specific on its own merits. And of course "Priority Habitat" does not mean that Greater Sage Grouse 

are, or ever were, present -- only that the habitat is quite suitable for sage grouse .... Ideally, along with the map should be a 

CO Both emc0056RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-540 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

disclaimer stating that: "The maps are a broad range guide, and each request/proposal should be examined site specifically to

consider the exact habitat where facilities are proposed to be located."

544. Please note that the two most common questions I hear when discussing the population of Greater Sage Grouse are: 1) Why 

is there still a hunting season in the areas where we are trying to protect the species? 2) Is anyone aware of the great number 

of predators now, yes fox and coyote, but more importantly crows and ravens?

CO Both emc0056RM

545. Pinto Valley Ranch covers over 10,000 acres with a substantial percentage of that area being included within the priority 

habitat area. The BLM maps show that the BLM owns the mineral rights under a significant portion of the Ranch that is 

designated as sage grouse priority habitat area. The Ranch is year-around home to a healthy population of sage-grouse and 

host several active leks as well as historical leks. In cooperation with both private biologists as well as multiple government 

agencies we have worked to create a conservation plan to improve habitats and, therefore, increase sage-grouse populations. 

The protection and improvement of sagegrouse habitats is something that we hold near and dear, so we appreciate the 

opportunity to comment on this important issue.

CO Both emc0064RM

546. For Special Status Species, like the sage-grouse, "habitat loss and fragmentation have been, and remain, the primary cause of 

their imperiled status." DRMP/DE!S, Ch. 3 at 3- 100. BLM recognizes that "[l]arge contiguous areas of habitat have been shown 

to support aud maintain Greater sage-grouse populations, and are necessary in order to provide lower densities of nesting 

hens." !d. Ch. 4 at 4-283. Given the highly specific requirements of sage-grouse nesting and wintering habitat, any disruption is 

detrimental to sage-grouse populations. !d. at 4-283. Thus, BLM recognizes it is crucial to preserve large blocks of 

un-fragmented sagebrush habitat. Considering only the Castle lek, all of the split estate parcels on the Proposed Tyler 

Mountain ACEC are within 2-3 miles of a lek. Furthermore, this split estate surface provides important nesting, brood rearing 

and winter habitat for a resident population of sage-grouse. Exhibit I at Ex. Bto R. Watson's Comment Letter (Dr. Holloran 

report,March 22, 2011 ). A more recent on-site survey confirms that these sage-grouse occupy 88% of the split estate parcels 

on the Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC. 7 Exhibit11 toR. Watson's Comment Letter. Dr. Holloran has concluded that 

"sagebrush habitats on [Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] are suitable for sage-grouse; all sagebrush dominated areas of 

[Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] that were surveyed during field efforts are used by sage-grouse; and all sagebrush habitats 

on [Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] that were surveyed during field efforts should be protected as core sage-grouse habitat

as established in the Colorado greater sage-grouse conservation plan ... the[se} sagebrush dominated areas on [Proposed 

Tyler Mountain ACEC} have special worth, significance, distinctiveness and substantial values for sage-grouse ... " Exhibit II 

Cover Memo atl to R. Ivatson ·s Comrnent Letter (emphasis added). See also Holloran in Stolz EA Comments (Ex. 1) at 

Exhibit Band Maps at Exhibit D-1 to D-3. His expert conclusion is that the Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC, including 

split-estate parcels subject to federal oil and gas development, hosts a largely sedentary, non-migratory population of 

sagegrouse that enjoy unfragmented access to all their seasonal habitat needs and that need to be protected as core 

sage-grouse habitat. !d.

CO BLM emc0057GB

547. Holloran's March 20 I I report (Exhibit I, Ex. B) provides detailed support of his conclusion that for this sedentary, 

non-migratory sage-grouse population, the habitat on the Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC is priority habitat that should be 

protected from leasing under the terms of the Sage-grouse JM. This conclusion was strongly confirmed with the results of the 

2011 survey. Exhibit Il to R. Watson's Comment Letter. Dr. Holloran's conclusion is that oil and gas development, will 

CO BLM emc0057RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-541

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

negatively influence the sagegrouse population that is reliant on habitats surrounding the active lek. Sage-grouse breeding, 

nesting, early brood-rearing, and late brood-rearing/summering, and wintering habitats may be directly impacted by 

development of these parcels. !d. at 2. In sum:

548. The PPH and PGH maps provided by the CPW include almost all of the sagebrush basin in Jackson County as PPH. Therefore 

any actions taken from the NTT Sage-Grouse EIS that apply to PPH will affect the vast majority of Jackson County. The 

NPSGWG acknowledges that the majority of North Park is breeding, summer, or winter habitat for sage-grouse. However, 

the NPSGWG requests that the BLM analyze if mapping the entire sagebrush basin in North Park as PPH is necessary to 

maintain sage-grouse in Jackson County. The NPSGWG also requests that the BLM have the ability to conduct local 

site-evaluations to insure that the site is indeed sagegrouse habitat. CPW’s mapping was done on a broad scale and there are 

likely some non-habitat inclusions where some amount of development could occur while also minimizing impacts to 

sage-grouse habitat. The NPSGWG also requests that the BLM EIS define the PPH and PGH maps as working maps with the 

ability to changes as habitat conditions change.

CO BLM emc0060RM

549. I was part of a three year effort of the Parachute-Piceance- Roan Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan (PPR, April 29, 

2008) workgroup which developed the localized management plan for grouse in Rio Blanco and Garfield County. Included in 

the group were local landowners, CDOW researchers, natural gas company representatives, BLM biologists, local 

environmental group members, FWS staff, COGCC staff, County staff, and others. Over the course of many meetings looking 

at the lek data, discussing the bird’s biology, getting updates on local and range-wide research, discussing limiting factors and 

the effects of habitat alteration, the group developed a comprehensive plan to manage sage grouse in our area. This document 

should be the starting point for development of alternatives for the EIS.

CO Both emc0061RM

550. In addition, given that the priority habitat maps were months behind, and even being modified less than two weeks prior to the 

close of the public scoping period, WSCOGA respectfully requests that the agency prepare a public memorandum sequencing, 

in lay terms, how the maps were prepared. Such a memorandum would allow all interested stakeholders to understand the 

basis for the designations. Amidst the public’s great confusion related to these maps some sort of laypersons communication 

is critical. We believe similar to aforementioned predeterminations that the BLM, at least in Colorado, appears to have 

pre-determined the scope of sage-grouse habitat in Colorado and the criteria utilized in the designation of the habitat.

CO BLM emc0062RM

551. More specifically, the BLM’s resources analysis (in the context of what it will mean to conserve Sage-Grouse) must in 

meaningful detail analyze and disclose impacts any conservation plan would have on local communities, the State of Colorado, 

the nation and resource companies, including those associated with the proposed elimination of available national mineral 

estate. In addition to the concerns regarding the narrow nature of the Report’s recommendations, it would not be 

understated to claim that the Report functions as a direct and precedent setting assault on valid and existing property rights. 

The recommendations in the Report include, for example:

- No new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitat during any time of the year.

-Applying rigid seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling prohibiting surface-disturbing activities during the nesting and 

early-brood-rearing season in all priority sage-grouse habitat during this period.

CO BLM emc0062RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-542 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

-Limiting surface disturbance on existing leases that are not yet developed to 3% of the leased area.

Despite increases in technological capability, it is well-known that no surface occupancy stipulations in many areas would 

result in an illegal taking by placing the public mineral resource out of range for reasonable and technically feasible access.

Also contemplated in the Report is the retroactive placement of conditions of approval for existing leases. Implementing such

a concept would be legally precarious, at best.

Generally, WSCOGA views the Report as proposing mitigation measures so onerous as to imply a takings or prohibiting the 

exercise of legal and valid rights to mineral properties.

Perhaps of greatest concern to WSCOGA is the agency’s abject ignoring of existing, successful conservation efforts to date. 

As with other land use decisions (Vermillion Basin), this administration seeks to pre-empt local land use planning that better 

considers multiple-use and local concerns. However, both the State of Colorado and BLM itself have developed and adopted 

well-recognized programs for the conservation of greater sage-grouse habitat.

In other contexts, BLM has explicitly adopted and deferred to state conservation programs. BLM should similarly adopt and

defer to state conservation programs in Colorado.

BLM’s proposed overhaul of the RMPs flatly ignores well-developed and well-supported conservation plans as has been 

pointed out by Garfield, Mesa and Moffatt Counties.

As opposed to relying solely upon the recommendations contained within the Report, BLM should evaluate existing 

conservation plans for their potential effectiveness that better measures nuanced local impacts to local stakeholders.

552. It would be interesting to read the documentation of the American Indian who studied the Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

before the arrival of the Europeans.

What kind of science was used to come up with 56%?

CO BLM emc0067RM

553. The Little Snake Field Office (LSFO) has the distinction of being home to not only the largest greater sage-grouse population 

in Colorado, but also part of the most important population in the eastern half of the species’ range, the Wyoming Basin 

regional population. Greater sage-grouse habitat in the LSFO includes a small area that supports an especially high abundance 

of breeding birds per unit area, relative to the entire eastern range of sage-grouse. The final LSFO RMP includes protections 

for greater sage-grouse that are an improvement over those outlined in any other final RMP to-date in Colorado. However, 

these measures are far from adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve this important population, as evidenced by 

concerns expressed by both state and federal wildlife agencies, referenced throughout this letter.

CO BLM emc0051RM

554. The MPSGWG recommends the protection of the habitat/movement linkages. The PPH and PGH map identifies a linkage CO Both emc0063RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-543

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

between the Middle Park and North Park populations, the EIS should analyze conservation measures to protect this important 

area. In addition, the working group recommends protection of the linkage area between Middle Park and the North 

Eagle/South Routt populations. This linkage was not identified on the PPH and PGH map. Movement linkages not identified as 

PPH areas should be given a higher level of protection from the more general PGH protections. The linkage areas should be 

protected from disturbances and energy development to allow continued exchange of birds between the two populations. 

The linkage between North Park and Middle Park is of particular importance to Middle Park for both genetic diversity and 

sustaining populations

555. BLM Colorado should strive to implement conservation measures that will maintain AND enhance each of the six greater 

sage-grouse populations in Colorado (Northwest Colorado, Parachute Piceance/Roan, Meeker/White River, Northern 

Eagle/Southern Routt, Middle Park and North Park). It is necessary for BLM to strive to maintain AND enhance each of these 

populations in order to achieve the goals of the National Planning Process.

CO BLM emc0070RM

556. The range of the greater sage-grouse has been divided up into management zones.3 There are two management zones in 

Colorado, the Wyoming Basin Management Zone (MZ II) and the Colorado Plateau Management Zone (MZ VII).4 Two of 

Colorado’s populations, Northwest Colorado and North Park, are part of the larger Wyoming Basin population. The 

Wyoming Basin Management Zone includes the Wyoming Basin population, along with the Middle Park and Northern 

Eagle/Southern Routt populations in Colorado. The Colorado Plateau Management Zone includes the remaining two 

populations in Colorado, the Meeker/White River population and the Parachute Piceance/Roan population (along with 

populations in Utah).

The area occupied by the Northwest Colorado and North Park populations, along with southwestern and central Wyoming 

has been considered a stronghold for greater sage-grouse, with some of the highest estimated densities of males anywhere in 

the remaining range of the species.5 This high density sagebrush area has been identified as one of the highest priorities for 

conservation consideration, as it encompasses one of two remaining areas of contiguous habitat essential for the long-term 

persistence of the species.6 The Wyoming Basin population, which includes the Northwest Colorado and North Park 

populations, has undergone long-term declines and is expected to decline by an additional 66% by 2037.7 However, this is a 

conservative estimate for a number of reasons and declines could be expected to be substantially greater.8 Thus, it is critical 

to ensure that the Northwest Colorado and North Park populations be effectively conserved. This will require 

implementation of adequate regulatory mechanisms in the Little Snake, Kremmling and White River Resource Management 

Plans. The goals and objectives of the plan amendment process for these three plans must be to maintain AND enhance each 

of these populations.

CO BLM emc0070RM

557. The remaining populations in Colorado are smaller and more isolated than the Northwest Colorado and North Park 

populations. It is important to conserve each of these remaining populations, in order to prevent substantial reduction in the 

distribution and abundance of greater sage-grouse, and to maintain existing genetic diversity exhibited by the species. In 

addition, it is important to conserve these populations in order to maintain opportunities for the public to see greater 

sage-grouse and enjoy sagebrush natural areas in each of the five BLM field offices within the range of the greater sage-grouse 

in Colorado.

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-544 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

558. The Middle Park population north-central Colorado is a small population, separated from adjacent populations by distance and 

mountainous terrain. Average rates of change indicate that a generally decreasing population from 2000-2007, and Garton et 

al. 2009 suggest that this already small population has a low probability of long-term persistence.

CO BLM emc0070RM

559. The Eagle-South Routt population is in north-central Colorado and is separated from nearby populations by distance and 

mountainous terrain. This population has undergone long-term declines. Population persistence for this population could not 

be modeled because of data limitations. However, based on current habitat impacts and management prescriptions, this 

population is unlikely to persist for more than 20 years.10 100 percent of the breeding habitat is affected by energy 

development.11 Research suggests that declines in lek attendance were strongly, negatively affected with the presence of wells 

in these areas, once the total number of wells in this Management Zone exceeded 250.12 Wells in the Northern 

Eagle/Southern Routt population currently exceed this threshold.

CO BLM emc0070RM

560. The Meeker/White River and Parachute Piceance/Roan populations (Colorado Plateau MZ) are in the Uintah-Piceance 

geologic basin. These populations are small and isolated, and are threatened by demographic, genetic and environmental 

stochasticity due to small size and isolation. In addition, these populations are threatened by a suite of deterministic threats, 

including: housing and energy development, predation, disease, and conifer invasion. Based on projected habitat impacts 

(particularly energy development) under current management prescriptions, the FWS believes that all of the populations in 

the Colorado Plateau MZ will be reduced in size and isolated in the future.

CO BLM emc0070RM

561. While existing or draft RMPs in NW Colorado discuss a number of traditional sources of direct and indirect impacts of 

anthropogenic developments on greater sage-grouse, CPW has noticed a lack of information and discussion of how and when 

noise from oil and gas development impacts greater sage-grouse. There is a developing body of literature suggesting that 

limiting anthropogenic sources of noise is necessary to minimize human impacts on greater sage-grouse (as well as other 

grouse species in the family Tetraonidae). There are a number of mechanisms by which anthropogenic sources of noise can 

negatively impact grouse, including the following: 

• Industrial noise masks the sounds of strutting males and may disrupt female choice of males on the lek (leading to reduced 

productivity)and cause females (and consequently males) to abandon leks;

• Industrial noise masks sounds made by approaching predators and may lead to increased predation and reduced survival for 

all age and sex classes in all seasonal habitats, not just at leks. Over time, this may result in reduced survival of birds inhabiting 

areas near noise sources and ultimately, fewer birds in developed areas. Sage-grouse may also avoid areas with industrial noise, 

which would result in the same pattern;

• Industrial noise in brood-rearing habitats may mask the predator-warning vocalizations given by females to chicks or the 

contact calls of lost chicks, either of which could lead to reduced brood survival;

• Sage-grouse of all age and sex classes in all seasonal habitats may respond to increased ambient noise by increasing time spent 

being vigilant, thereby increasing energetic costs and decreasing time available for foraging and self-maintenance, leading to 

CO Both emc0072RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-545

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

poorer body condition and reduced productivity; and 

• Industrial noise could cause chronic physiological stress that leads to poorer body condition and reduced survival or 

productivity

562. CPW recognizes that the Routt National Forest has relatively little total acreage within mapped PPH and PGH compared to 

the BLM Field Offices. However, CPW recommends that the USFS provide protection for sage-grouse habitat on the Routt 

National Forest. CPW requests that the USFS address sage-grouse habitat needs for projects planned in PPH and PGH. The 

largest portion of sage-grouse habitat on the Routt National Forest is mapped as PGH in California Park and Slater Park. 

Although the areas are mapped as PGH, CPW believes that Slater Park and California Park provide an important movement 

corridor from the large sage-grouse populations in the Little Snake Valley to the smaller population areas in the Elkhead Valley. 

CPW recommends maintaining these habitats for movement corridors and potential breeding and brood rearing habitat. 

CPW has worked with the USFS on previous efforts to restore sagebrush and understory communities in California Park to 

benefit both greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. CPW recommends that the USFS continue these 

restoration efforts.

CO USFS emc0072RM

563. Moffat County is concerned that this report is not a fair representation of the literature, research, and empirical evidence was 

consulted regarding Sage-grouse. The report does not acknowledge the role of predation, an area that Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife researchers gathered mostly empirical evidence throughout the decade of NW Colorado grouse research. The

Department of Agriculture manages Wild life Services which has predator control authorities, and Moffat County requests 

they be used to study the role of predation on Sage-grouse.

The technical report does not adequately address the symbiotic relationships and dependence between livestock grazing and 

Sage-grouse. The Technical Team Report suggests additional restriction on range improvements and their locations (i.e. 

fences. stock watering ponds, watering systems, etc.) without acknowledging their beneficial role for Sage-grouse. The 

Technical Team Report also lays the framework for oil and gas development as being harmful to the existence of grouse. The 

irony in this is that areas of Moffat County that have oil and gas development (eastern Moffat County) are maintaining grouse 

populations, while other areas of Moffat County with no oil and gas development have declining grouse populations.

CO BLM emc0076RM

564. Moffat County is concerned the Technical Team Report fails to credit local and statewide efforts that have been ongoing to 

conserve grouse. There have been local Sage-grouse working group reports that document brush treatments, water 

development projects, forb management, hunting season regulation, wildfire management and countless other conservation 

actions that have positively impacted grouse survival in NW Colorado, yet the Technical Team Report does not give credit to 

these conservation measures as being successful for the species. The Technical Team Report allows for a measure of 

retirement of grazing permits in priority Sage-grouse areas as well as restricting oil and gas development by not issuing leases 

under certain circumstances and limiting disturbance to 3% of the surface. These suggestions directly conflict with the decade 

of planning that went into the BLM Little Snake Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) as well as the NW Colorado 

Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. The local RMP thoroughly analyzed all alternatives from no oil and gas development 

to full development in grouse areas, and ultimately decided upon a 5% disturbance threshold in low to medium priority 

CO BLM emc0076RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-546 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

habitats and a 1 % disturbance threshold on new leases in high priority habitats with an operator submitted Plan of 

Development. These criteria are listed in the RMP and should be given deference considering the RMP went through several 

years of planning with grouse conservation as one of its priorities. The background used to justify the recommendations in the 

Technical Team Report is miniscule in comparison to the man-hours spent studying the above recommendations for 

Sage-grouse protection in the Little Snake RMP. Failure of the Technical Team Report to incorporate the local and current 

Sage-grouse Conservation Plan and the Little Snake Resource Management Plan leads to inadequate grouse management in 

NW Colorado.

565. Moffat County requests the EIS acknowledge that conservation of the Sage-grouse is not possible on federal lands only. 

Non-federal lands playa key role in Sage-grouse conservation. For example, most of the hay production is on private lands, 

which are synonymous with the insect food source necessary for rearing grouse chicks. Considering the important tie 

between federal and non-federal habitat Moffat County encourages BLM to recognize the need to begin developing/participate 

in discussions regarding Conference Opinions, CCA's and CCAA's immediately. The significance is that Section 7 

Consultations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service create a Conference Opinion which will be converted to Biological 

Opinion should the Sage-grouse become listed under the Endangered Species Act. Having the EIS prioritize developing a 

Conference Opinion, CCA's, and CCAA's immediately, will assure minimal impact on local economies should the bird become 

listed. Conservation actions by both federal and private land managers and agreements and assurances with the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service regarding land management will already be in process, saving months if not years of time, should a listing 

occur. This method of beginning consultations early is proving fruitful in the Wolverine planning efforts.

It focuses and "pre-approved" land uses such as mining, ski area expansions, and ''take'' provisions in Wolverine reintroduction 

areas. The Conference Opinion and CCA's can focus on identifying and quantifying uses that are compatible with Sage-grouse 

protection proactively.

CO BLM emc0076RM

566. Vegetation Mapping and Adaptive Management is Critical

Another core philosophy in the above mentioned planning documents is that there must be the flexibility to allow for different 

adaptive management strategies within different habitats and regions of Sage-grouse habitat. The statewide Sage-grouse 

management plan offers a concept which Moffat County supports to assure adaptive options for grouse management. 

Appendix B in the statewide Sage-grouse management plan provides an opportunity for mapping vegetation communities and 

habitat to decide appropriate land management rather than using hard and fast buffer zones to regulate land uses. Adaptive 

Management through vegetation mapping offers a better option than concrete regulation of ground disturbing activities as well

as general land use to occur where habitat mapping exists at a detail which demonstrates that the proposed activity will not 

harm Sage-grouse. Mapping habitat can replace the need to utilize .6 mile (breeding zone) and 4 mile (nesting and early brood 

rearing zone) concentric circle buffers for disturbance guidelines. The ability to manage grouse and land uses

adaptively by mapping habitat zones is a better and more adaptive concept than applying stiff regulation such as a 3% 

disturbance threshold or a .6 mile and 4 mile buffer around leks.

CO BLM emc0076RM

567. One Size Does Not Fit All CO BLM emc0076RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-547

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

The Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Working Group signed its Conservation Plan in 2008 and has 

recommendations for grouse population thresholds, buffers around leks, disturbance recommendations, and regular 

monitoring recommendations. Also some of the most intense Sage-grouse monitoring research in the II-state range of the bird 

occurs in Moffat County. Moffat County understands that the State of Wyoming's density calculations and core area concepts 

are being considered across the Greater Sage-grouse habitat. Moffat County specifically requests a review occur to determine 

the compatibility of the core area concept with the concepts for Greater Sage-grouse protection within our local

Conservation Plan. Where inconsistencies occur we request BLM support the work of local communities and not try a 

one-stop-shop for Greater Sage-grouse protections throughout Colorado’s Greater Sage-grouse habitat. Although there 

needs to be guiding principles for management of Greater Sage-grouse habitat, the BLM EIS should recognize that each area 

has identified land uses and Greater Sage-grouse protections that are specific for each grouse management zone identified in 

the NW Colorado Sage-grouse Management Plan. Attempting large scale regulation without allowing the nexibi li lY for local

conservation measures specific to grouse management zones is not feasible.

568. Greater Sage-grouse Priori tv Map

Moffat County requests additional time to evaluate the impacts of the Greater Sage-grouse Priority Map. The above 

mentioned map was provided to the public very late in the comment process for this EIS. Moffat County is considering 

additional mapping evaluation 10 portray impacts. Considering that Moffat County has described above that Sage-grouse

cannot be conserved without a federal and non-federal partnership, we request the EIS contain maps identifying both federal 

and non-federal owned lands. Currently the map published by Colorado Parks and Wildlife only focuses on habitat, and 

ignores the management differences between ownership of surface. A map showing land ownership under priority habitats will 

pictorially highlight the impossibil ity of conserving Sage-grouse without federal and non-federal partnerships.

CO Both emc0076RM

569. Of special note and difference to the Public Lands Council’s and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s, CCA does not 

support the implementation of core area concepts for Colorado’s sage grouse populations. This is to the diversity of habitat,

distribution and geographical differences that would disallow a successful core area approach from being considered

CO Both emc0149RM

570. Colorado is on the edge of GSG range. Populations, especially those outside of far northwest corner of the State, are relatively 

small in size, and, as is further discussed below, have greatly declined. Therefore, a high percentage of habitat for GSG must be 

protected.

CO USFS emc0175RM

571. II. PROTECT ALL GSG HABITAT ON THE ROUTT. The SRC "Core Area Overview" map shows two small draft core areas 

west and southeast of the Town of Yampa. These areas are currently used by GSG. Data from the Colorado Division of Parks 

and Wildlife also shows historic (and likely now unoccupied) habitat in the California and Slater Parks area northwest of

Steamboat Springs. GSG will need all the habitat it can possibly use in order to survive and recover to full viable

populations. Merely maintaining the current habitat and population levels will not be sufficient to recover the species and avoid 

ESA listing. This is especially true in Colorado, which is near the edge of the species’ range and where all grouse populations 

have declined greatly, and are small and fragmented relative to grouse populations closer to the center of the species’ range. 

Also, climate change is likely to lead to an increase in fires and coverage of exotic species, and a

concomitant reduction in sagebrush habitat. Miller et al, 2009, at 45.

CO USFS emc0175RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-548 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Therefore, the Forest Service must ensure protection of historic, as well as occupied, habitat. The agency should also look for 

opportunities to restore historic habitat and other potential habitat that has been adversely altered or is unavailable because 

of management, but that could become usable GSG habitat in the future after some treatment and/or a change in management. 

The larger the habitat areas managed to protect and recover GSG, the greater the chances of maintaining and restoring the 

connectivity of habitat. Greater sage-grouse is a landscape-scale species, and requires large blocks of intact sagebrush habitat 

to survive. 75 Fed Reg 13923. Habitat loss and fragmentation are major factors that have led to the decline of the greater 

sagegrouse. Id. at 13924 et seq.

572. III. ENSURE THAT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ON NATIONAL FOREST LAND DO NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT GSG 

HABITAT AND POPULATIONS ON ADJACENT LANDS. Though there is a relatively small amount of GSG habitat on the 

Routt NF, there is considerable habitat adjacent to national forest land. See Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife’s Map of 

Preliminary Priority and General Habitat at:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Pages/WildlifeSpecies.aspx. This map shows that there is some priority habitat in 

close proximity to the Routt National Forest and some general habitat on the Forest. Activities on land adjacent to GSG 

habitat, such as energy development operations could adversely affect GSG ability to use the habitat. For example, the impacts 

of energy development on greater sage-grouse can extend out to greater than 4 miles from the footprint of the development. 

Please see NTT, 2011, at 18-21 for discussion of the indirect and cumulative impacts that activities adjacent to GSG habitat can 

have on GSG populations. Thus, the FS should implement conservation measures on national forest land adjacent to GSG 

habitat to avoid indirect and cumulative impacts on GSG habitat and populations.

CO USFS emc0175RM

573. (Two of the NTT recommendations that are most important for Routt NF)

1. Objective. The Routt National Forest should make the following objective a Forest Plan standard:

Large‐scale disturbances that impact sage grouse distribution and abundance at any level will not be permitted within priority 

areas (subject to valid existing rights). Other, smaller scale proposed anthropogenic disturbances will not disturb more than

a total of 3% of the acreage within each priority area. NTT, 2011, at 8. Another objective recommends clustering of human 

disturbances in existing disturbed areas, and applying appropriate buffers around disturbances. Id. at 9.

2. Sub-objective. The following should be a Forest Plan standard:

Assess general sage‐grouse habitats to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused by perturbations and/or 

disturbances and provide connectivity...between priority areas. Restore historical habitat functionality to support 

sage‐grouse populations guided by objectives to maintain or enhance connectivity. Total area and locations will be

determined at the Land Use Plan level. Id. at 9-10.

CO USFS emc0175RM

574. (One of the most important NTT recommendations for Routt NF) MONITORING. Monitoring GSG habitat and populations 

will be essential to determining how well the species is faring, and to allow changes in management, if needed, to ensure 

conservation of the species. Therefore, some GSG habitat and populations must be monitored regularly to assess changes, 

positive and negative, over time, and inform future management. The recommendations of NTT at 30 are good and should be 

implemented, but additional measures are needed. See subsection B below.

CO USFS emc0175RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-549

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

575. 3. Have a strong monitoring program. As discussed above in subsection A, monitoring is critically important. The monitoring 

program for GSG should have "triggers" or thresholds that, once exceeded, necessitate changes in management. Triggers 

could include, but not necessarily be limited to: sage-grouse population target ranges, target levels of survival and recruitment 

in particular areas, measures of the cumulative level of surface disturbance, and oil-gas well densities in core areas. The 

monitoring program should also state what additional actions might be taken if triggers are exceeded. It is especially important 

to closely monitor any projects or treatments designed to improve, restore, or re-establish GSG habitat. This would include: 

assessing conditions before treatment, recording exactly what treatment was done and where, and monitoring conditions for 

some time after treatment. In projects where sagebrush restoration is attempted, monitoring may be needed continuously for 

20 years or more. Only in this way can the agency and others learn what might work and what probably will not work in 

conserving GSG. This adaptive management approach should be required. Monitoring should be conducted with the help of 

interested stakeholders, especially the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife.

CO USFS emc0175RM

576. In all that North Park sagebrush before there was a Walden, Rand, Cowdrey, or even Pearl, Colorado, there was a town on 

the Michigan River called "Sagehen." It was named for the most abundant year around animal in North Park and had the 

counties first post office back in the 1880's. That settlement was later moved and renamed for a man named Walden. Maybe 

the name should have stayed "Sagehen." Sagehens by the hundreds of thousands inhabited the high valley in the 1880's when 

settlers took up the river valley homesteads. Sometimes sagehen flights blocked out the sun over tiny pioneer Walden and 

strutting grounds had thousands of displaying males each spring. Not so today! About 2,600 or so are scattered over a valley 

forty miles wide and nearly as long. North Park is still filled with the rich big sagebrush and lush river valley clover sagehens 

needs to live. With such abundant food, water, and space, why are they so rare? Why are they unable to increase numbers? 

Natural predators have taken sagehens for millions of years. Some are: coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, bobcats, badgers, and 

mink who hunt on the ground. Skunks, weasels, raccoons, badgers, and even Richardson's ground squirrels eat sage grouse 

eggs. Also hawks, eagles, owls, gulls, magpies, and crows, kill young, take eggs, and sometimes kill adults. Cold icy storms take 

some as do the long bitter winters at 8,000 feet elevation. But, these are old hat and natural. Sagehens lived millions of years 

with all of these plus wolves and grizzlies getting adults, eggs, and young. All this didn't put a dent in their population. Sagehens 

were also once so numerous the Ute Indian kids killed them with rocks, sticks, and tiny play bows and arrows. These natural 

events and agents take sagehens, but the food, cover, and water are still there to support hundreds of thousands. They 

shouldn't be so rare, and rarity is the first step to final and absolute extinction.

CO Both rmc0016RM

577. Of course, conserve the grouse and its habitat. Also consider the need for more oil production and out need for jobs for men 

and women

CO Both rmc0017RM

578. Properly planned drilling, roads, do not need to disturb the bird. Coyotes are perhaps a bigger problem than drilling CO Both rmc0017RM

579. Tri-State recommends that the priority and general habitat maps have a disclaimer that states that each Resource Management 

Plan should delineate where the priority habitats actually occur within the boundaries of the CDPW habitat areas. The maps 

CO BLM rmc0019RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-550 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

should clarify that habitats have not been refined at this point in the process,

580. Mitigation in the forn1 of funding resea rch studies would be benefi c ial to both the agencies and industry in helping both 

groups understand the issues as well as identifying effective miti gation measures that could minimize potential effects. All 

stakeholders agree there are a number of factors affecting sage-grouse across the western U.S. from habitat loss to disease to 

predation. The Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Plan (2008) cites Connelly and Braun 1997 and Connely et. al 2000c, "the 

effect of predation on the fluctuations and viability of sage-grouse populations has never been inv estigated ." The BLM has 

acknowledged in public meetings that natural predation could be a signifi cant factor in sage-grouse mortality, yet there is still 

no clear understanding of the extent of these impacts on overall sage-grouse populations. Additional research fu nds could be 

used to better understand natural mOliality rates from predation and would enable us to better understand how re lative rap 

tor predation from increased perching on power po les may affect sage-grouse.

CO Both rmc0019RM

581. It would greatly benefit both land management and regulatory agencies and the electric utility industry if additi onal research 

could be conducted to help evalu ate effective buffer distances and potential seasonal restrictions for linear features to protect 

sage-grouse and their breeding habitats and to fac ilitate reasonable and effective project planning. Tri-Sta te currently abides 

by agencies recommended seasonal restrictions for the operation and routi ne maintenance with sage-grouse present in the 

area. Unfortunately, these standards tend to vary by agency, office and staff, which makes it difficult to plan the development 

of a transmission project that minimizes impacts to sage-grouse to the greatest extent feasible. It is understood th at 

requirements and recommendations will and should vary depending on area, habitat, and other site-specific factors. However, 

consistency among the BLM Field Offices in the manner in which seasonal constraints and buffers are assessed and identified 

earl y on in the planning process is critical to ensuring consistency across the greater sage-grouse's overall range.

CO Both rmc0019RM

582. Tri-State requests that the Final EIS address specific timelines for the BLM's analysis and decision making process as it pertains 

to detennining project approval and mitigation measures in Priority and General Sage-Grouse habitats. The process, as 

outlined in the Interim Management and Policies and Procedures, creates uncertainty as to the length of time it will take to 

obtain ROW authorizations on BLM-administered lands in greater sage-grouse habitats. If the BLM office and State Wildlife 

Agencies do not agree on the proposed mitigation measures, the second step requires the project be reviewed by the BLM 

State Direc tor, State Wildlife Agency Director, and UFWS representative. If they do not agree, the third step require the 

project go to the Greater Sage-Grouse National Policy Team with the State Wildl ife Agency Director, finally, if no decision 

is made, the National Policy Team will coordinate and blief the BLM Director for a final decision. This process could be 

cumbersome and time consuming, particu larly if there are no defined decision dates for the process. Tri-State requests that 

there is a fonnal process with fonn al tim elines for consultation similar to what is established through Section 7 consultation 

with the U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. Without set timeframes, ROW 

applicants are risk ing millions of dollars for infrastructure development,such as elec tric tran smission lines and substations 

without any celiainty of when a decision could be made. The proposed process makes it very difficult to plan and budget for 

any project, necessary to meet customers' power requirements. Uncertainty as to the length of the review process creates a 

large ri sk for industry, and will not fulfill the Departme nt oflnterior's directive to streamline its rev iew processes.

CO Both rmc0019RM

583. It is Tri-State 's understanding from recent conversations with BLM staff that the entire National Technical Team's report will CO Both rmc0019RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-551

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

be included as a DEIS alternative and that each BLM office will aSSeSS how each of their existing Resource Management Plans 

address and comply wi th conservation measures identi fied in the National Technical Team Report. Given the comments 

provided above, which were minored by other stakeholders during public scop ing, the technical report, as written, will have 

serious implementation issues that might not be feasible with other fede ral mand ates. Many sections of the Technical Rep0l1

appear to be difficult if not impossible for local BLM staff to implement and still allow for lawful development and ongoing land 

uses. The BLM needs to assess and communicate how this guidance would be implemented and specify th at each BLM office 

has the ability to detennine what is most appropriate for their given area. Consistency in the analysis approach is critical, but 

the DEIS should clarify th at appropriate and effective sage-grouse conservation measures could vary from region to region. All 

Resource Management Plans should include conservation measures that are feas ibl e and compatible wi th industries 

operational standards.

584. Consistency is critical to Tri-State and its member cooperatives from a risk analysis, permitting, and cost perspect ive. 

Tri-State supports the BLM goal of "Providing consistent national pol icy and guidance on the conservation of greater 

sage-grouse in the form of clear goals, objectives and management considerations for planning." Consistency in the process is 

cri tical to utilities; however, the DEIS should include adaptive management and site-specific considerations (e.g. , land use and 

conditions, topography, habitat, etc.) when assessing sage-grouse conserva tion measures for projects. Adaptive management 

may require establi shing processes outside the current status quo for sage-grouse management. Tri-State supports greater 

sage-grouse conservation efforts and believes that effecti ve sagegrouse management requires frequent communication and 

coll aboration among agencies, industry, and affected publics involved with transmission and energy-related projects. The 

guidelines should first stress the importance of early communication during the planning process for all appli cations on federal 

lands to avoid impacts to sage-gro use to the greatest extent feasible and ensure clear direction for multi-use projects . 

Tri-State req uests that the BLM work closely with the state wildlife agencies and greater-sage grouse working groups. These 

working groups and conservation plans were created through co llaboration with interdisciplinary teams with multiple 

stakeholders to ident ify reasonable,feasible, and effective management policies and objectives for greater sage-grouse 

conservation. The ELM and States should have a consistent management approach to ensure effective sagegrouse 

conservation, while allowing for the delivery of safe and reliable electricity to communities and customers throughout the 

Rocky Mountain West. Tri-State believes that cooperation between the BLM and industry can ensure that greater sage-grouse 

are conserved on public lands and that the nation's energy requi rements can be fulfilled in a responsible nature.

CO Both rmc0019RM

585. Based upon the timing of release of the Colorado Sage-Grouse Maps, BLM should both extend the scoping period for the NW 

Colorado Sage-Grouse EIS to allow interested parties appropriate time to review and comment on the Colorado 

Sage-Grouse Maps, and should further accept and consider comments on the habitat designations during the public comment 

period provided on any draft EIS. The Sage-Grouse NOI states that "[tJhe most current approved BLM and FS corporate 

spatial data will be supported by current metadata and will be used to ascertain greater sage-grouse habitat extent and quality." 

76 Fed. Reg. nOl1. Thus, the Sage-Grouse NOI suggests that the NEPA process will include evaluation of greater sage-grouse 

habitat and quality, including input from interested members of the public on any such designations. Ory agrees with an 

approach that seeks and obtains information from the public on the definition of sage-grouse habitat and the criteria used to 

define sage-grouse habitat appropriate for conservation. BLM's apparent reliance on the Technical Report as the principal 

CO BLM rmc0021RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-552 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

determinant of "habitat extent and quality" is at variance with a com mitment to open and transparent development of such 

data.

586. Despite the language in the Sage-Grouse NOI, BLM, at least in Colorado, appears to have predetermined the scope of 

sage-grouse habitat in Colorado and the criteria utilized in the designation of the habitat. BLM released the Colorado 

Sage-Grouse Maps on March 13, 2012. These Colorado SageGrouse Maps depicted both priority habitat and general habitat 

within the occupied range in Colorado. BLM Colorado Sage-grouse Conservation Efforts, "Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

Greater Sage-grouse Priority Habitat Maps," (March, 13, 2012), available at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/programs/wildlife.Par.98066.File.dat/CPW%20Gr%20 

Sage%20grouse%20habitat%203-13-12.pdf. BLM defines PPH as "a reas of high probability of use (summer or winter, or 

breeding models) within a 4 mile buffer around leks that have been active within the last 10 years." & BLM defines PGH as 

"greater sage-grouse Occupied Range outside of PPM. Isolated areas with low activity were designated as general habitat." & 

Neither these maps nor the criteria for designating areas as PPH or PGH were available for public comment until March 13, 

2012. Because designation of sage-grouse habitat, and in particular priority habitat, will be a controlling metric that determines 

the conservation strategy to be applied (including apparently a moratorium on mineral development). BLM cannot rely upon 

these maps to determine the precise lands to be affected by the RMP amendments until the public has had an opportunity to 

fully evaluate, critique and understand the criteria used in establishing those maps, the basis for the criteria used in establishing 

those maps and the data used to develop those maps. Accordingly, BLM must both extend the scoping period for the NW 

Colorado Sage-Grouse EIS to reinitiate the forty-five day scoping period under NEPA, and accept and consider comments on 

the habitat designations during the public comment period provided on any draft EIS. Scoping is "an early and open process for 

determi ning the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action." See 

Wyoming v. U.S. Dept . of Agriculture. 661 F.3d 1209, 1238 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7). Furthermore, FLPMA 

requires the public be given adequate notice and an opportunity to comment on the formulation of standards and criteria for, 

and to participate in, the preparation and execution of plans and programs for the management of public lands. See BLM 

Handbook 1601-1, Land Use Planning; see also 43 C.F.R. § 1601.0-8. BLM's untimely release of information (i.e. the Colorado 

Sage-Grouse Maps) critical to an evaluation of the significant issues related to the proposed action only ten days before the 

conclusion of the scoping period does not comport with the required public processes under NEPA and FLPMA. The 

Colorado Sage-Grouse Maps were made public on March 13, 2012; accordingly, Oxy respectfully requests that the forty-five 

day scoping period be reinitiated, beginning March 13, 2012, to allow additional time to review the Colorado Sage-Grouse 

Maps in light of the other information provided by and referenced by BLM in the SageGrouse NOI and Technical Report.

CO BLM rmc0021RM

587. The BLM should focus the strongest protections on the most important sage-grouse habitats, which is often where the largest 

number of grouse are found this increases chances for success. The BLM should protect a large enough area of priority habitat, 

to maintain AND increase sage-grouse populations.

CO BLM flm0000RM

588. To be effective, BLM should address all threats to sage-grouse. Each plan must adequately protect greater sage-grouse from all 

threats (e.g. construction of transmission lines, energy development, roads, wildfires and invasive weeds).

CO BLM flm0000RM

589. The BLM should focus the strongest protections on the most important sage-grouse habitats, which is often where the largest 

number of grouse are found – this increases chances for success. The BLM should protect a large enough area of priority 

CO Both fll0000RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-553

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

habitat, to maintain AND increase sage-grouse populations.

590. To be effective, BLM should address all threats to sage-grouse. Each plan must adequately protect greater sage-grouse from all 

threats (e.g. construction of transmission lines, energy development, roads, wildfires and invasive weeds).

CO BLM fll0000RM

591. The scoping statement identifies 438,500 acres on the Thunder Basin National Grasslands (TBNG) as potential sage grouse 

habitat. That, to us, seems to be an abundance of habitat for the birds.

East Both emc0108RM

592. The Scoping Statement states the BLM has over 30 MILLION acres of occupied sage grouse habitat; therefore, we believe 

there is no shortage of habitat for the sage grouse.

East Both emc0108RM

593. 4. THE AGENCIES SHOULD COMMIT TO IDENTIFICATION OF YEAR-ROUND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

According to the NTT report, "priority sage‐grouse habitats are areas that have the highest conservation value to maintaining 

or increasing sage‐grouse populations. These areas would include breeding, late brood‐rearing, winter concentration areas, 

and where known, migration or connectivity corridors." Often transitional habitat, such as migration or connectivity 

corridors, necessary for sage-grouse to travel through the landscape (Knick and Hanser 2011) to vital seasonal habitat, is not 

adequately recognized and incorporated into sage-grouse conservation and management. The interim guidance released by 

BLM in December, 20114 does little to provide guidelines for the preservation or inventory of important sage-grouse 

transition habitat, and our organizations seek to assure that the full suite of habitat requirements is incorporated into the final 

guidance on RMP revisions for sage-grouse.

East Both emc0089RM

594. Recommendations: According to the Technical Team’s report, "Sage‐grouse dispersal (permanent moves to other areas) is 

poorly understood" and that it "appears to be sporadic." BLM should provide guidelines for the preservation or inventory of 

important sage-grouse transition habitat. BLM should also create management policies that are low-risk and will protect areas 

that may likely serve as important corridors and transition habitat due to the proximity of these areas to highly productive 

habitat and lek sites.

East Both emc0089RM

595. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach

Wyoming’s strategy emphasizes stronger protections within core areas, with less stringent protections and greater 

management flexibility in non-core areas as an incentive for development to leave core areas intact. While this strategy 

acknowledges that non-core area grouse populations will likely decline due to loss and fragmentation of habitat, monitoring 

must take place to prevent the extirpation of populations and maintain connectivity among subpopulations. In non-core areas, 

lek persistence must be maintained over the long term, with sufficient proportions of sage-grouse populations remaining to 

maintain connectivity and movements.

East Both emc0089RM

596. In regards to vegetation, the Land Use Planning Handbook instructs BLM to “provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife 

habitats,” and to “[i]dentify areas of ecological importance and designate priority plant species and habitats, including special 

status species and populations of plant species recognized as significant for at least one factor such as density, diversity, size, 

public interest, remnant character, or age.” Id. App. C at 3. BLM should “[i]dentify the actions and area-wide use restrictions 

needed to achieve desired vegetative conditions.” Id. App. C.

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-554 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Similarly, the Land Use Planning Handbook also offers guidance on agency decisions that may affect special status species, 

instructing the BLM to: Identify desired outcomes, strategies, restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and management 

actions to conserve and recover special status species. Desired outcomes may incorporate goals and objectives from recovery 

plans and conservation strategies or identify ecologically important areas or scarce, limited habitats. Goals and objectives may 

be species or habitat specific and can be established at multiple scales (i.e., fine, mid, and broad) to fully understand the context 

of the larger landscape. Id. App C. at 4.

It further recognizes the importance in conserving special status species, and the role of BLM in ensuring such conservation:

Given the legal mandate to conserve threatened or endangered species and BLM’s policy to conserve all special status species,

land use planning strategies, desired outcomes, and decisions should result in a reasonable conservation strategy for these 

species. Land use plan decisions should be clear and sufficiently detailed to enhance habitat or prevent avoidable loss of habitat 

pending the development and implementation of implementation-level plans. This may include identifying stipulations or 

criteria that would be applied to implementation actions. Land use plan decisions should be consistent with BLM’s mandate to 

recover listed species and should be consistent with objectives and recommended actions in approved recovery plans, 

conservation agreements and strategies, MOUs, and applicable biological opinions for threatened and endangered species. 

This section highlights the requirement of the agency to follow relevant policy regarding special status species and the agency’s 

sage grouse conservation strategy. Additionally, consistency is a notable requirement here, and BLM should thus ensure 

consistency across landscapes throughout this process to protect sage grouse populations and habitat.

597. The greater sage-grouse, the largest member of North American grouse species, is a sagebrush-obligate species - they depend 

entirely on large, healthy and connected stands of sagebrush for survival. Prior to European settlement, an estimated 

16,000,000 sage-grouse inhabited the West. Degradation and fragmentation to sagebrush habitat has led to dramatic, 

long-term declines in populations. Current estimates suggest that no more than 500,000 sage-grouse remain, and nearly 50 

percent of the species’ habitat has been lost entirely. Today, sagebrush steppe is considered one of the most imperiled 

ecosystems in North America.

Sage-grouse are landscape-scale species that depend on a variety of sagebrush habitats throughout the year. In the spring, 

adults use sagebrush for cover during breeding. Typically, productive nesting areas are characterized by sagebrush with an 

understory of native grasses and forbs. Both sagebrush canopy and grass cover are critical to reproductive success, providing

necessary concealment of nests and young from potential predators. Nesting success drops an estimated 15 percent in 

disturbed sagebrush habitats, as compared to habitats where sagebrush has not been disturbed. Following hatching, 

brood-rearing habitat must provide adequate sagebrush canopy cover to conceal chicks that forage on nearby forbs and 

insects, essential to their nutritional health. In the summer, sage-grouse typically use sagebrush habitats as well as riparian 

areas, wet meadows and alfalfa fields, all of which provide forbs and insects, essential foods for the birds at this time of the 

year. In the fall, sage-grouse begin shifting their diet entirely to sagebrush, which they then depend on throughout the winter 

for food and cover. Damage to even one of these seasonal habitats can impact sage-grouse.

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-555

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

While impacts to habitat are not uniform across the range, impacts are substantial in many areas and will continue or even 

increase in the future across much of the range of the species. The FWS concludes:

With continued habitat destruction and modification, resulting in fragmentation and diminished connectivity, greater 

sage-grouse populations will likely decline in size and become more isolated, making them more vulnerable to further 

reduction over time and increasing the risk of extinction (70 FR 2244). And based on current and ongoing habitat issues, their 

synergistic effects, and the likelihood these will continue in the future, the FWS sites "threat of present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of the greater sage-grouse’s habitat or range" as the basis for determining that the 

species warrants listing under the Act as a threatened or endangered species (70 FR 2244).

598. The NTT report lays out two spatial extents for measuring anthropogenic disturbances: 1) the area contained within individual 

priority areas and 2) each one‐mile section within the priority area. The report also recommends exclusion of any large-scale 

development or disturbances that impact sage grouse distribution and abundance at any level within priority areas (excluding 

valid pre-existing rights). Smaller scale development should not exceed 3 percent of acreage within the priority area. Any 

proposed anthropogenic disturbance will be encouraged to occur in existing disturbance areas or outside of priority areas (p. 

8). By not allowing anthropogenic disturbance in key habitat strongholds, the BLM will reduce threats, help stabilize 

sage-grouse populations, and provide upfront information to developers regarding potential areas closed to disturbance.

In addition to creating permanent safeguards in priority habitat, the NTT outlines several objectives for general habitat on 

pages 9 and 10. These include:

 Assess general habitat for the potential to provide connectivity among priority areas

 Conserve, enhance or restore sage‐grouse habitat and connectivity to promote movement and genetic diversity

 Assess general sage‐grouse habitat to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused by disturbances and 

provide between priority areas. The NTT explains, "These habitats should be given some priority over other general 

sage‐grouse habitats that provide marginal or substandard sage‐grouse habitat." ( p. 9)

 Restore habitat functionality to support sage‐grouse populations by increasing connectivity and enhancing general 

sage‐grouse habitat to ensure population declines in one area are replaced

The report underscores the value of areas defined as "general habitat." General habitat serves an invaluable role of connecting 

priority areas in the sage grouses’ lifecycle. General habitat also provides future opportunity for habitat restoration and 

replacement of lost priority habitat. For these reasons, general habitat should not be viewed as marginal lands, and the BLM 

should focus on conserving, enhancing, and restoring these areas as suggested by the NTT report.

East Both emc0167RM

599. Besides habitat fragmentation, other challenges to sage grouse conservation persist. Some threats are indirect effects from the 

mechanisms that create habitat fragmentation. For example, noise from drilling and associated activities can drive sage-grouse 

from the area, can cause physiological stress, and moreover may interfere with auditory cues and communication between 

individual birds. As the NTT Report points out, a recently completed research study in Wyoming revealed that noise from 

natural gas drilling and roads resulted in a 29 percent and 73 percent decline respectively in male peak attendance at leks 

relative to paired controls, and that declines were immediate and sustained throughout the experiment with low statistical 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-556 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

support for a cumulative effect of noise over time.

600. C. RMPs and Forest Plans Must Require Consistent and Scientifically-Based Monitoring Efforts and Include Detailed 

Information on Sage-Grouse Populations and Habitat.

Effective management of sage-grouse and their habitats is dependent on accurate information on populations, demography, 

behavior, habitat quality, habitat distribution, and many other factors.3 Long term population, habitat, and implementation 

monitoring must be required in all land management plans. In order to determine the impacts of public land activities and other 

potential threats to sage-grouse, the BLM and Forest Service must implement consistent and scientifically-based monitoring 

plans that will determine the health, range, and changes to sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitat. Monitoring should 

be continuous, on-going, and a consistent approach should be utilized across the range of the sage-grouse to allow for easy 

data comparisons. Additionally, monitoring and population surveys should be conducted before, during, and after completion 

of all site-specific projects and activities in order to determine the effects from all projects on sage-grouse. To this end, 

individual projects approved under amended plans must include appropriate funding levels for monitoring.

Surveys should include a numerical count of sage-grouse and a count of leks and male sage-grouse numbers near each 

documented lek. The responsible federal or state agency should include all relevant information to help inform future 

decision-makers, including the distance of documented leks and birds from the project. Monitoring should not be limited to 

aerial surveys but should also include ground-truthing to ensure collection of the most accurate data possible.

East Both emc0167RM

601. Although there has been an ever-increasing amount of research on sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat in recent decades, there 

are still many questions with regard to the decreasing populations of sage-grouse. For example, the effects of OHV use on 

sage-grouse or sagebrush habitats are relatively unknown, although experts have surmised the potential effects. Additionally, 

although many experts believe that a buffer between leks and harmful activities may increase sage-grouse survival rates, it is 

unclear for which activities a buffer should be implemented, or how large that buffer should be based on scientific evidence. To 

gather answers to these important questions that will offer more insight on how to manage for healthy sage-grouse 

populations across the West, the BLM and Forest Service should identify, prioritize, and facilitate research opportunities with 

the States and with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This should consist of range-wide cooperation and 

collaboration efforts. The agencies must also work to ensure that annual funding is available for such research and all 

completed studies should be published, made easily accessible to the public, and peer-reviewed where necessary to affirm 

scientific accuracy

East Both emc0167RM

602. E. The BLM and Forest Service Should Determine, and the RMPs and Forest Plans Should Identify, Priority Sage-grouse 

Habitat, Occupied Sage-grouse Habitat, and Unoccupied but Suitable Sage-grouse Habitat

Within each RMP and Forest Plan land planning areas, the BLM and Forest Service must collect pertinent information and 

identify priority sage-grouse habitat, occupied sage-grouse habitat, and unoccupied but suitable sage-grouse habitat. This 

determination must be based upon the best available science and up-to-date surveying and monitoring results. As the National 

Technical Team suggests, priority habitats should include breeding, late brood-rearing, winter concentrations areas, and 

migration or connectivity corridors.

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-557

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Nothing in this determination should be based upon political endeavors or other agency priorities. When determining 

unoccupied but suitable sage-grouse habitat, the public should be given an opportunity to weigh in and final determinations 

should be based upon the biological and scientific information demonstrating the capability of the area to support sage-grouse. 

To this end, the agencies must complete, maintain, and update eco-regional assessments of sagebrush and sage-grouse habitats 

across the sagebrush biome prior to the initiation of any new projects.

603. The agencies should also prohibit conversion of sagebrush habitat to any other use within priority sage-grouse habitat. Direct 

conversion of land for agriculture, development, and other purposes deprives sage-grouse of habitat necessary to survive. This 

direct loss of habitat is inevitably harmful to a species already struggling to survive across its current, and already seriously 

reduced, range. Remaining priority habitat must be protected, as this species can hardly endure further loss. See infra Section 

III.H for more information on the threats associated with conversion of sage-grouse habitat. Because direct conversion is a 

real threat when public lands are sold to private interests, we agree with NTT’s directive to retain public ownership of priority 

sage-grouse habitat and to seek and acquire state and private lands where possible to best conserve sage-grouse habitat.

East Both emc0167RM

604. G. The BLM and Forest Service Should Manage Activities in a Manner to Protect Sage-Grouse to the Greatest Extent Possible 

in Occupied or Suitable Habitat

The NTT mainly addresses priority habitat, and thus only addresses broad objectives in other sage-grouse habitat that also 

must be protected through this process. In areas that are occupied by sage-grouse but not determined to be priority habitat, 

or in areas unoccupied but suitable for sage-grouse, the agencies must implement standards to ensure that all activities and 

projects proceed in a manner aimed to protect sage-grouse to the greatest extent possible. Energy development and other 

projects described above should proceed in these areas, only as long as they can conform to standards set forth in the RMPs 

and Forest Plans. These standards must be stringent in order to protect suitable habitat, as the Technical Team Report noted 

that sage-grouse "may avoid otherwise suitable habitat as the density of roads, power lines, or energy development increases."

East Both emc0167RM

605. Furthermore, "avoidance is likely to result in true population declines if density dependence, competition, or displacement of 

birds into poorer-quality adjacent habitats lowers survival or reproduction."14 Thus, density limits on infrastructure should be 

set in areas of suitable habitat that is outside of the priority habitat areas.

East Both emc0167RM

606. Additionally, the agencies should require a "no net loss" of sagebrush habitat or sage-grouse populations at appropriate spatial 

and temporal scales when providing for non-renewable resource development and utilization or renewable energy 

development. The agencies should further develop and implement technologies and practices that offset, reduce and/or 

minimize disturbance to sage-grouse and their habitat associated with nonrenewable resource recovery activities. In areas 

where dispersed recreation is permitted, it should be managed in a way to avoid, reduce, and where possible eliminate, 

displacement of sage-grouse or negative impacts to sage-grouse habitat. Along those lines, we support the NTT’s directive to 

allow only special recreation permits that have neutral or beneficial affects to priority habitat areas.

East Both emc0167RM

607. The environmental impact statement (EIS) must acknowledge and address the scientific controversies regarding the habitat for 

the sage grouse, estimates of current numbers and changes in populations, impacts of other uses on sage grouse numbers, as 

well as historical range, current range, and best mitigation measures. The Technical Team Report is written in absolutes, a 

profound error given both the lack of data, the wide range of lands affected, and the apparent failure of BLM to consider 

East Both emc0155RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-558 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

conflicting data and research.

608. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) rules require federal agencies to address and document areas of scientific 

controversy. 40 C.F.R. §§1503.4, 1502.9(b); 1508.27. There is ample scientific dispute with respect to most aspects of the 

Technical Team Report and the IM, including historic range of the sage grouse, sage grouse population estimates, impacts on 

sage grouse numbers, including predators, hunting, and diseases, like West Nile Virus, impacts, if any, of livestock grazing, and 

impacts of development. These issues and oth283ers have been raised and yet BLM fails to address them or even acknowledge 

the scientific debates. The IMs do not acknowledge contrary viewpoints, research or data. See e.g. Thresholds of Energy 

Development and Greater Sage-grouse Populations, Harju, Taylor, Dzialak, Clark, Hayden-Wing, and Winstead

2010; Oil and Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus Urophasianus): a Review of Threats and Mitigation 

Measures, Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat 2011. The Colorado Division of Wildlife also assessed the basis for the USFWS listing 

but warranted decision and prepared a detailed critical review. These reports and other work need to be considered 

especially since the universe of sage-grouse research is very incestuous and does not meet the professional standard for

peer review. Science or Advocacy? Ecology and Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats 

Center for Environmental Science Accuracy and Reliability (Feb. 1, 2012) (CESAR) pp. 2-7.

East Both emc0155rm

609. As shown in the attached comments, the premise of sage grouse having lost most or all of its historic habitat is deeply flawed. 

Ex. 1, pp. 1-2; Ex. 1A pp. 1-4; see also CESAR at pp. 8-12. The assumption ignores recorded history, soils and climate. The 

USFWS lacks any data for the historical range described in the 2010 finding and it grossly overstates original sage grouse 

populations and range. Id. BLM has a legal obligation to use actual data and records, not just take for granted the

unsupported hyperbole found in the USFWS finding.

East Both emc0155rm

610. There is no data to support the 3% limit used in the Technical Team Report for the surface disturbance ceiling in priority 

habitat. Technical Team Report at pp. 7-9. Its application is made more problematic in light of DOI's efforts to push through 

its green energy projects that will quickly use up the 3% disturbance ceiling especially when added to existing roads, projects 

and permits. The 3% surface disturbance limit is also infeasible to achieve and has been selected without any thought to 

whether it can actually be implemented. In many areas, current roads and rights-of-way will equal the 3% without taking into 

consideration valid rights. This occurred in Wyoming when the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) adopted the 

surface disturbance limit in 2009. It was significantly revised once it was apparent that it could not be implemented without

violating land rights and valid rights.

East Both emc0155rm

611. Land management changes should not occur without important research issues being addressed. For example, much of the 

consternation focuses on lek absence in the middle of drilling fields. But there is no data regarding whether the birds died or 

merely relocated. The failure to discover whether the sage grouse relocated is a huge gap in the knowledge base.

East Both emc0155rm

612. A related question is sage grouse use of reclaimed habitat. How does that differ from sage grouse use of other habitat that has 

been the subject of vegetation improvement projects? Do sage grouse return to a well site or field once traffic and activity 

levels die down? Certainly other wildlife return to the fields once activity levels drop off.

East Both emc0155rm

613. In order to truly protect sage-grouse habitat, we feel all agencies must focus on ways to enhance and increase sage-grouse 

populations. The species warrants protection due to the dramatic population declines range-wide. BLM has an obligation to 

East Both emc0385GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-559

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

evaluate all reasonable methods and management alternatives under which populations will increase, not simply flat-line. We 

encourage the BLM to incorporate the designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) into planning and 

analysis for Oregon. Because of the mapping efforts already completed by ODFW, areas of “core” sage-grouse habitat, 

identified as "Habitat Category 1" and considered “irreplaceable, essential habitat,”8 are places where ACEC designations 

should be considered to ensure long-term protections. We urge BLM to use the recommendations of its own National 

Technical Team (NTT) as minimum standards and work with ODFW representatives when preparing the new EISs. The NTT 

summarized existing sage-grouse science well, and BLM must work within the framework of the most recent science to create 

an adequate regulatory framework as defined by USFWS.

614. We recommend that management efforts for greater sage-grouse first focus on increasing female survival by restoring large, 

intact sagebrush-steppe landscapes, reducing persistent sources of human-caused mortality, and eliminating anthropogenic 

habitat features that subsidize species that prey on juvenile, yearling, and adult females.

GB Both emc0404GB

615. We support efforts to increase chick survival and nest success by eliminating anthropogenic habitat features that subsidize 

chick and nest predators, and by managing shrub, forb, and grass cover, height, and composition to meet local brood-rearing 

and nesting habitat guidelines.

GB Both emc0404GB

616. In the semi-arid rangelands of the Great Basin, the unstable moisture occurrence results in drastic growth differences of many 

plant species. Along with the mmbinations of other various factors, this can and does strongly affect numerous animal species. 

Those species that can handle the severe up's and down of the Great Basin survive the best. Unfortunately the GSG does not 

handle those up's and downs well.

GB Both emc0388GB

617. Sage-Grouse are endangered only to the extent that natural cycles occur in the sage brush eco‐system of the Great Basin.The 

Sage‐Grouse are reduced as predator numbers increase. Fire and drought adjust predator numbers and Sage‐Grouse flourish. 

The positive for Sage‐Grouse can be extend by man through livestock grazing and predator control. Ultimately the cycle will 

prevail.

GB Both emc0223GB

618. The Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), often referred to as simply “sagegrouse,” is the largest grouse in 

North America and lives in sagebrush dominated systems. The species is considered a “landscape specialist”—requiring large, 

intact sagebrush habitats. Sage-grouse rely on different types of sagebrush habitat to satisfy their requirements during

different seasons of the year1, with the annual range of a sage-grouse encompassing up to 2,700 km.

Ensuring the species’ survival requires comprehensive analysis of remaining habitats and populations on a range-wide basis, and 

then adopting a range-wide conservation plan to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect the 

species across its range. Indeed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recognized this basic fact, calling for, “Meaningful

restoration for greater sage-grouse requires landscape, watershed, or eco-regional scale context rather than individual,

unconnected efforts.” (75 Fed. Reg. at 13917)

GB Both emc0355GB

619. Identify Important Habitats: Identify areas of high biological value for sage-grouse, including important seasonal areas and 

migratory corridors that can be permanently set-aside from large-scale development and managed with emphasis on not only

maintaining, but enhancing greater sage-grouse populations.

GB Both emc0355GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-560 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

620. In order to truly protect sage-grouse habitat we feel all agencies must focus on ways to enhance and increase sage-grouse 

populations. The species warrants protection due to the dramatic population declines range-wide BLM and FS have an 

obligation to evaluate all reasonable methods and management alternatives under which populations can rise, not simply 

maintain. We urge BLM and FS to use the recommendations of its own National Technical Team (NTT) as minimum standards 

in preparing the new EIS’s. The NTT summarized existing sage-grouse science well, and BLM must work within the framework 

of the most recent science to create an adequate regulatory framework as defined by USFWS.

GB Both emc0355GB

621. The BLM should continue to utilize the most recent compilation of scientific information and management recommendations. 

Information outlined in the December, 2011, “Report on National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Measures” (referred to 

hereafter as “report”) prepared by the Sage Grouse National Technical Team (referred to hereafter as “NTT”), as well

as ongoing scientific findings, should be incorporated into the conservation guidance that drives BLM management decisions. 

Interim guidance issued in December 2011 (See IM 2012- 043) by BLM does not fully reflect the breadth of discussion and the 

conservation direction provided in the report. The omission of important conservation measures in IM 2012-043, such

as prohibiting energy development in high productivity sage-grouse habitat, demonstrates that BLM is not yet fully relying on 

the scientific information described by the Technical Team. The report serves as a road map of what BLM should consider 

when creating scientifically defensible management decisions for sage-grouse conservation. This report is a review of the

most recent science needed to address the listing factors outlined in detail by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the 

12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered. BLM should also refer to the 

12-month findings and other peerreviewed scientific information when completing the sage-grouse EIS’s.

GB Both emc0355GB

622. The USFWS’ analysis in the March 2010 finding underscores the many increasing threats facing sage-grouse populations and 

remaining habitats, including from agricultural conversion of sage-brush habitats, improper grazing management, 

infrastructure, energy development (both traditional and renewable energy sources), invasive weeds, fire, climate change, 

West Nile virus, and others. This has been corroborated by many others in the scientific community. In 2011, a consortium 

of premiere sage-grouse researchers came together in a peer-reviewed journal, Studies in Avian Biology, to review the 

impacts on this iconic bird and provide best management objectives. Recommendations from the sources listed above are 

summarized in Section XV – Scientific Background.

Summary: The 2010 USFWS 12-month findings, the Studies in Avian Biology sage-grouse monograph, the Technical Team’s 

report, and other relevant peer-reviewed research on sage-grouse biology should be clearly referenced and provide the 

foundation of BLM planning to ensure that the most recent science is guiding decision-making and to enable effective public

review and comment.

GB Both emc0355GB

623. According to the NTT report, “priority sage‐grouse habitats are areas that have the highest conservation value to maintaining 

or increasing sage‐grouse populations. These areas would include breeding, late brood‐rearing, winter concentration areas, 

and where known, migration or connectivity corridors.” Often transitional habitat, such as migration or connectivity

corridors is not adequately recognized and incorporated into sage-grouse conservation and management. Such transitional 

habitat is necessary for sage-grouse to travel through the landscape (Knick and Hanser 2011) to crucial seasonal habitat. The 

interim guidance released by BLM in December, 2011 14 does little to provide guidelines for the preservation or inventory

of important sage-grouse transition habitat, and our organizations seek to assure that the full suite of habitat requirements is 

GB Both emc0355GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-561

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

incorporated into the final guidance on RMP revisions for sage-grouse. Many state-level planning efforts have not adequately 

incorporated transitional habitat into conservation efforts. The BLM has an obligation to build upon the knowledge and efforts

completed by state agencies and ensure public lands are managed to enhance sage-grouse populations. Additionally, there is 

great need for more research to adequately identify and delineate these transitional habitats.

Summary: The BLM should work with state wildlife agencies to identify important migratory corridors and afford them ACEC 

status or a level of protection equivalent to protections created for other crucial habitat.

624. Populations Are Not in Drastic Decline The FWS Findings admit that GSG “numbers are difficult to estimate” due to 

numerous factors, but conclude “since neither presettlement nor current numbers of sage-grouse are accurately known, the 

actual rate and magnitude of decline since presettlement times is uncertain.” If the assumption is made that the overall trend 

reflects a “decline” from presettlement times, it would require GSG population levels in the early and mid 1800s to be much 

higher than documented at various points in recorded history for the Great Basin. A complete picture of Great Basin GSG 

numbers since written records began indicates: • pre-settlement populations were quite low, but well scattered; • populations 

dramatically increased between the late 1800s and early 1900s; • populations peaked in about 1930 and remained high through 

the 1960s (perhaps interrupted by a moderate dip due to commercial hunting); • populations declined rapidly from the 1970s 

through about 2000; and • populations declined more slowly from 2000 through 2010, and have even increased during the last 

part of this period in certain locations. Recent data from Nevada Department of Wildlife report increasing GSG populations 

within the state from 2008 through 2010. This conflicts with the forecast that GSG populations will continue to significantly

decline into the foreseeable future

GB Both emc0381GB

625. There seems to be an unstated assumption in this and other documents/papers that large sage-grouse populations known to 

occur in the 1950's are the baseline for comparison with today's populations. This approach is highly questionable. There is no 

evidence (scientific or anecdotal) that pre-settlement sagegrouse populations were nearly as large as those observed in the 

1950's or even today. It may be quite desirable to stop the downward trend in population in those areas where it has 

occurred, but returning to the large populations of the past is likely not possible and should not be a management goal, until 

we understand what conditions led to those large populations.

GB Both rmc0067GB

626. Western Legacy Alliance would encourage the BLM to determine for themselves if a 5,000 bird minimum sustainable 

population will inherently have protection, and be housed within current WSA’s, National Parks and Monuments, State 

WMA’s etc. Are the use restrictions already in place within these designated area’s complementing the existing GSG 

populations and as such would this preclude increased regulatory mechanisms on other lands under BLM’s management?

GB Both emc0384gb

627. Some sage-grouse in southwest Montana migrate (sometimes up to 50 miles) between separate summer and winter areas. 

Ongoing research has documented migratory movement across the Continential Divide from eastern Idaho to Big Sheep 

Creek Basin in southwestern Beaverhead County, and from the Centennial Valley in southwest Montana to Idaho.

Research on habitat and sage-grouse populations is being conducted by Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP), BLM, USFS, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), University of Montana Western (UMW), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Montana 

IDMT Both rmc0028GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-562 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Audubon in the Dillon Local Working Group Area. This includes work on lek counts, habitat mapping, migration patterns, and 

the genetics of the population.

628. I would contend you missed some USDA Foest. Priority forest on the Salmon-challis NF. Your mp shows the Pioneer MTS 

and the last River Range as non-priority and there is some good sage-grouse habitat there

IDMT Both cfc0004GB

629. Another habitat concern that needs to be addressed are those areas where we do not have complete information on 

sage-grouse distribution. In those areas in particular all sagebrush habitat, no matter how deteriorated, must be considered 

potentially important to sage grouse until adequate data are collected to determine they are not now, nor will they be in the 

future, necessary to recover sage-grouse is particularly true for the southeast Idaho Uplands area, areas south and west of 

the Big Desert area, and areas where the traditional sage-grouse habitat has become fragmented by agriculture and 

infrastructure development.

IDMT Both emc0181GB

630. The Group has developed a sage-grouse conservation plan for Jarbidge Planning Area, which includes the goals outlined below. 

We ask that the BLM consider these goals as they finalize the Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.

-Maintain and restore a dynamic sagebrush ecosytem.

-Increase sagebrush habitat

IDMT Both emc0158GB

631. The Group has developed a sage-grouse conservation plan for Jarbidge Planning Area, which includes the goals outlined below. 

We ask that the BLM consider these goals as they finalize the Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.

-Restore fragmented and degraded sagebrush habitat to a healthier condition with distribution matching historical patterns

- Link existing and restored sagebrush habitat

IDMT Both emc0158GB

632. The Group has developed a sage-grouse conservation plan for Jarbidge Planning Area, which includes the goals outlined below. 

We ask that the BLM consider these goals as they finalize the Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.

-Maintain huntable and sustainable sage-grouse populations

-Sustain, maintain, or improve sage-grouse habitat in the five sub-units of the Jarbidge Field Office.

IDMT Both emc0158GB

633. I am a resident of Stanley, Idaho and live in an area where froom time to time sage-grouse are present. IDMT Both emc0065GB

634. There is little doubt that the once healthy populations of this bird in our area and the study area have been in decline for some 

time and are now in serious jeopardy. The basic cause is also pretty clear - the decline of large areas of suitable habitat due to 

increased mineral exploration, the over extension of livestock ranching and the impact of greatly increased recreation, often

with little or no oversight

IDMT Both emc0065GB

635. As I understand, according to BLM data, the biggest threats to Sage Grouse populations are loss of habitat in the last 40 years 

due to invasive species/conifer invasion (cheat grass & juniper trees), infrastructure (power transmission lines, wind power 

projects), mineral and energy extraction, range fires (both wild and prescribed), and agriculture & grazing activity plus changes 

in the weather.

IDMT Both emc0122GB

636. I would like to offer some comments on the recovery of the sage-grouse. To begin with it is well under way. Being in their 

territory most of my time I see a very significant increase in the last ten years and even more in the last five years. The

first thing agencies want to study is habitat and I can assure you that habitat- especially in our area is quite good. Every time we 

make a range improvement or enhance a grazing system things improve for all.

IDMT Both emc0377GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-563

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

637. in our ranching area, south of Malta, Montana, we find several groups of sage-grouse use our agriculture fields including alfalfa 

and grain. Factors we have observed over the years include; 1) most grouse groups range from 5-8 with no young; 2) increased 

numbers of coyotes and fox; 3) vastly increased numbers of ravens and crows; and 4) over the years we have observed an 

increase in hunter pressure on upland game birds.

IDMT Both emc0135GB

638. We have seen many Sage Grouse, undisturbed in mountainous and prarie land. My estimations are that our Sage Grouse 

population is thriving.

IDMT Both rmc0007RM

639. Some states, like Idaho, released overwhelmingly lek area-based maps with the IMs that omitted critical intact occupied 

sagebrush habitats. Others, like Nevada, did not provide maps until early March 2012. See discussions below about Idaho and 

Nevada mapping concerns. To its credit, Nevada took much more care in mapping than Idaho, but still segregated large areas 

and failed to have any updated information on some Population Management Units (PMUs) that may be on the verge of 

extinction.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

640. Idaho mapping sacrifices extensive occupied sage-grouse habitats in Idaho that had previously been identified as Key habitat for 

sage-grouse from 2006 to 2011 in the Idaho Sage-grouse Plan Mapping. Vast areas in Salmon-Challis BLM region and other 

areas have been chopped off from what had been recognized as vital Key Habitat in 2010 in landscapes with intact sagebrush 

where recent fires have not occurred. We questioned the BLM state biologist about this. The reply was: That’s different one 

is habitat based [Key], the other is based on population based [BLM’s Priority scheme]. How can BLM expect a population to 

exist without habitat? Tremendous harm will be done unless the mapping and habitat protections are immediately restored 

at a minimum to include all Key Habitats, and nearly all the identified restoration habitats as priority areas. Many of these 

restoration habitats were omitted altogether.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

641. The mapping at the Idaho meeting appeared to rely almost solely on the Core habitat Sacrifice Model, and was focused on leks 

where agencies could access areas to count birds, or where intensive studies had been conducted. There were lofty 

descriptions of what the mapping was claimed to be presenting on the top of each map. For example, the Priority Habitat map 

caption stated that these areas were what BLM had identified as sufficient to "sustain" sage-grouse populations. The Map 

Legend: Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) are shown for Idaho, while Sagegrouse 

Core Habitat is shown for Montana. PPH includes areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to 

maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations. These areas include breeding, late brood-rearing, and winter 

concentration areas. PGH includes areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat. Both PPH and 

PGH have been identified by the BLM in coordination with the Idaho Fish and Game Department. Core Habitat in Montana is 

roughly equivalent to PPH, and includes habitats associated with 1) Montana’s highest densities of sage-grouse, based on male 

counts and/or 2) sage-grouse lek complexes and associated habitat important to sage-grouse distribution But this was not the 

case. Our queries revealed that the mapping at the meeting was almost entirely lek-driven, and the legend was misleading. 

IDFG’s representative distanced himself from the mapping, and said it was really BLM's mapping, and IDFG had not had that 

much input yet.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

642. Idaho mapping shows how bad things are in Idaho. In many areas of critically important sagebrush habitats that have not yet 

been overrun by annual exotic weeds such as the Pahsimeroi, the Little Lost, the Lemhi, portions of the Owyhees including 

IDMT BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-564 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

vital low sagebrush country right at the ION border, BLM failed to include lands as "Priority" habitat. The "Priority" habitat is 

based on drawing a 4 or 5 mile circle around some known leks, and at times including some other lands in a few areas where 

the most intensive studies have been done. And of course, areas of good lek surveys, are very often areas with the best truck 

access in early spring

643. BLM provided no map that showed the historic extent of sagebrush habitat in Idaho (or western Montana). In order to 

understand the degree and severity of sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat and population loss, thorough and detailed mapping 

of all historic sagebrush habitat is necessary. The changes that occurred over time must be displayed. This is essential to show 

how the Priority habitat scheme slices off a considerable amount of what remains of the already greatly reduced habitat. We 

note that at least one isolated population of sage-grouse in western Montana appeared missing from BLM mapping entirely.

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

644. State game agencies in the past focused on counting birds at the largest and more accessible leks. Lek counts, and the trend 

leks that are counted consistently over time, have often been larger leks, and their selection has also depended on accessibility 

- very often by road – for annual counts. Thus, there is a bias in the Core Area and PPH lek-based mapping to monitor larger 

leks, in areas where it was easiest for agencies to count the most birds on the ground and to locate leks. Leks in more remote 

areas for example he West Little Owyhee country, portions of the Bruneau, etc. may be under-sampled. Many more leks are 

counted in recent years, so higher totals do not necessarily reflect more birds.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

645. Priority habitat is defined as: Breeding, late brood-rearing, winter concentration, and migration corridors (where known). Yet 

the mapping in Idaho greatly reflects leks- and not all of these other seasonal habitats in many areas.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

646. The NTT’s "priority habitats" are supposed to stabilize populations in the short term, and enhance populations over the long 

term. But the habitat-discarding mapping of ID BLM in the Pahsimeroi, Lost River, Little Lost, southeastern Idaho, portions of 

the Owyhee and Jarbidge other areas shows BLM is not doing this. But instead has focused overwhelmingly on some lek 

clusters while sacrificing vast areas of sagebrush habitats. We emphasize what is not stated, i.e. there is no commitment to 

do anything positive whatsoever for all the sacrificed populations that fall in the segregated General Habitat category. Plus, 

review of Nevada’s and other mapping clearly shows that both habitats are used by the same PMU. And the only requirement 

for General habitat under the IM is to "reduce and mitigate" adverse effects. There is no commitment to do anything positive 

for the population. Yet a population uses BOTH kinds of habitats. So how can BLM expect rosy outcomes by just taking care 

of one sub-set of habitat?

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

647. ..Maintain or increase current populations, manage or restore priority areas so that at least 70% of the land cover [in priority 

habitats only] provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage-grouse needs." Where in the mapping for all these states to

date has the BLM identified where land cover is adequate vs. inadequate? Wouldn’t "inadequate" areas be identified as 

restoration habitat, wouldn't it? Yet BLM Priority/General mapping as in the case of Idaho omits any clear distinction and 

understanding, and omits large areas of identified restoration habitat. In fact, Idaho's carefully identified restoration and key 

habitats from the 2006 Plan that have been used through 2010 are arbitrarily ignored by BLM in many areas in this process. 

The Nevada mapping and process is better - in that it uses more habitat categories and much more careful and thoughtful 

work went into it, but yet it still relegates many important areas to lesser importance once the Priority/General scheme is 

imposed.

IDMT BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-565

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

648. Large differences in the care with which mapping was done are found between states. And even within states - as in different 

areas in Idaho are treated quite differently. This is arbitrarily done from one location to another.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

649. Idaho BLM produced a White Paper report (Makela and Majors). This embraces the lek-based core model, and writes off large 

blocks of occupied sagebrush habitats in some areas, while arbitrarily including burned areas in other some regions – but not 

all – as Priority habitats through model upon model being applied. It is impossible to understand the utility of the Idaho 

mapping – other than as an office cubicle modeling exercise. The Core and Idaho BLM modeling focuses on leks and some 

sub-set of breeding and nesting habitats. The White Paper describes that: In March 2010, USDI BLM directed FO managers to 

implement appropriate conservation actions in “priority sage grouse habitat”. IM 2010-071. This was described as “habitat of 

highest conservation value relative to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations rangewide”. It is hard to understand 

how all occupied habitat for this species that Warrants ESA Listing is not considered of high value by BLM now in 2011-2012. 

General Areas “represent areas of occupied sage grouse habitat not included in Priority Areas”. Priority Areas represent high 

priority sage grouse areas characterized by a combined high make lek attendance, high density, and high lek connectivity. “Gas 

may serve as important connectivity corridors between Pas, potential stepping stones, (habitat islands for grouse movement 

within corridors) or occupied habitat characterized by low lek density”. We elsewhere discuss how naturally fragmented 

topography may result in lower densities of grouse in an area, even though the habitat may be of high quality – and the many 

problems of applying a Wyoming- based big expanses of sage-grouse habitat Core Model to a landscape where sage-grouse 

exist in a fundamentally different landscape configuration, in a less uniform and often highly fragmented landscape.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

650. Makela and Major state: “many area of sage-grouse habitat in Idaho are contiguous with habitats in the neighboring states of 

Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and Montana”. But BLM’s analyses and actions in this EIS process are to be based on artificial state 

boundaries for the agency’s own convenience. This illustrates why a unified set of strong protections, and ACECs that span 

state boundaries, must be developed range-wide. Pages 2-3 states that sage grouse breeding density in 2010 was modeled on 

three scale: Rangewide; across the Stiver WAFWA Management Zones [MZs based on the diversionary floristics habitat 

segregation scheme, and not populations]; and by individual state”. Idaho lies within MZ IV. Idaho BLM claims to have 

incorporated data from neighboring states - and espouses interstate connectivity. But this appears to be arbitrarily applied –

for example in portions of the Owyhee Region where the extreme SW corner of Idaho in the heart of a critical block of 

sagebrush habitat is sacrificed as general sacrifice habitat, and other areas as well. Review of the floristic region boundary in 

western Idaho-eastern Oregon and Nevada (MZ V) shows interconnection of habitats and populations in the Stiver et al. 

(2006) mapping Fig. 1.3. This is despite claims made in Stiver (2006) and up to the present that somehow MZs are not very 

connected, as justification in part for why they are being used.

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

651. Did IDFG datasets or BLM exclude leks that have since been lost, and thus underplay importance of habitats recently lost to 

fire – like Murphy. See page 4. Makela and Majors tried to identify patterns of habitat and non-habitat using burn severity. They 

assumed areas of low burn severity maintained largely the same habitat as before the burn. But burn severity says nothing 

about the presence of sagebrush, and there is no evidence that sufficient sagebrush may remain in areas of low burn severity.

Burn severity may also depend on the characteristics of the vegetation that was present pre-burn. In fact, it is our observations 

in some areas of the Jarbidge and elsewhere that areas of low burn severity typically had reduced or limited sagebrush or other 

woody shrub structure over substantial areas pre-burn. This means that even if there are islands of unburned vegetation left 

IDMT BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-566 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in “low severity” areas in a burn, the vegetation that is present may be primarily grass, or sparse shrubs not suitable for 

providing habitat essentials. It is unacceptable to map low severity burns as sagebrush habitat without ground-truthing. 

Because after all “low severity” still means the sagebrush burned, and is likely not providing sagebrush habitat essentials for 

sagegrouse. This is not to downplay the importance of any remaining unburned islands of sagebrush – but claiming that all of 

these areas are comprised of sagebrush helps agencies mask the severity of habitat loss and fragmentation that has occurred. 

We find it very hard to believe that BLM did not have quite adequate veg data available, and/or did not make an effort to 

obtain, current high quality current information on sagebrush cover in burned areas so that a valid estimate of the remaining

sagebrush within burn perimeters could be determined. In fact, it is our experience with the Murphy and other wildfires, that 

BLM uses a flush of fire funds associated with wildfires to immediately obtain detailed information about sagebrush persistence 

– often down to 5 to 10 acre polygons, or to even greater accuracy. Why wasn’t this information used? Why didn’t BLM 

collect at least current data on vegetation cover for this report that is now being used to segregate and doom some habitats?

BLM claims that “due to our limited ability to effectively characterize “burn severity” in shrub systems, it is likely COH 

(Currently Occupied Habitat) in low severity is over-estimated”. There is no valid reason for BLM not obtaining high quality 

data, especially now that this report and its various models are being used to discard habitats. This lack of accurate information 

adds to the uncertainty of heaping modeling exercise upon modeling exercise to try to guess at the slice of landscape one can

sacrifice and still have sage-grouse be present, and the importance of particular lands to a population. Unless BLM understands 

how little habitat it has left, it can’t understand how imperative protection and restoration are, or how it can possibly “sustain” 

habitats.

652. The Report’s decision not to use a 10 year time interval to estimate where 75% of the claimed Core breeding population was 

located, and instead shifting to only the last five years, likely resulted in the mapped Core area shrinking from what would have 

been shown based on 10 years of data, because of fire effects on lek counts in large burned areas. So less habitat was mapped 

by Idaho. Under this lekbased method, as the habitat is lost and population wiped out, the area essential for 75% of the 

population shrinks to a certain point. This accommodates industrial development. And the Wyoming 5% development even of 

Core, plus the NTT range-wide 3% more development even of core/priority. Plus habitat degradation will continue as from 

chronic livestock grazing disturbance, and stochastic events will result in ever-shrinking originally identified Core habitat and 

ever-smaller protected areas. In the meantime, the General areas with few if any effective development controls have become 

lost altogether.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

653. Regarding the White Paper’s use of corridor terminology: We are concerned that grouse may not migrate in the same way in 

a corridor as do antelope, deer, elk, etc. Movement may be much more diffuse, at times. Big game (deer, elk) tolerate more 

disturbances than sage-grouse, and use a much broader array of disrupted habitats, big expanses of grasslands, roads and 

transmission lines and the combined effects of these, etc. during migration and throughout the year so for such species a 

narrow corridor approach may be feasible. With sage-grouse, much broader areas may be required. BLM has recently issued 

some new documents on corridors, and it is unclear if they apply to sagegrouse. But until BLM gathers much more complete 

multi-year harsh weather use and movement and other data on sage-grouse, and use of all seasonal habitats including brood 

rearing habitats, and nesting habitats for the significant numbers of birds that nest a considerable distance from leks, the 

definition of discrete narrow areas as corridors will be a big mistake. Blocks of land are needed especially to buffer areas of 

IDMT BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-567

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the landscape used for movement from fire, sagebrush die-off or other unforeseen and unpredictable events.

654. The BLM Instruction Memo 2010-071 states: Priority habitat will be areas of high quality habitat supporting important 

sage-grouse populations, including those that are vulnerable to localized extirpation but necessary to maintain range-wide 

connectivity and genetic diversity. How will BLM decide which populations it is going to sacrifice? Idaho BLM appears to have 

forgotten about this when developing its model upon model mapping. The Core Model cast aside peripheral populations, even 

though these may be very important to maintain genetic diversity. It also chops off leks and habitats that may even be 

contiguous to Core Areas - just because larger numbers of birds are not known to show up on leks in those areas. BLM must 

fully consider all seasonal habitats and habitat connectivity as critical, and consider areas critical for connectivity to be priority 

habitat not map it away as has been done in the Pahsimeroi, Lost River, Little Lost, Beaverhead, Lemhi and other areas.

IDMT BLM emc0411GB

655. The next generation of analyses to direct conservation action should be two fold. First, there is a need to support 

implementation of core regions with studies that document seasonal habitat use and migration patterns of radio-marked 

sage-grouse (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, Doherty et al. 2008) to ensure identified priority landscapes meet all seasonal habitat 

needs. Second, incorporation of future modeling of other relevant risks, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invasion, to 

core regions will ensure gains in conservation will not be offset by unevaluated risks. Well, there is nothing in the Makela and 

Majors Idaho White Paper about risk of cheatgrass, is there? Yet ID set about chopping off habitats with this score scheme, it 

appears without assessing risk. It does not appear that Nevada assessed risk, either. So habitat segregation is occurring in lands 

most vulnerable to cheatgrass without assessing risk. Precautionary management requires that agencies do these studies first

– before sacrificing habitat to the oil and gas, wind or other industries. There is no going back, and replacing habitat sacrificed 

under the core or priority scheme models. Regarding cheatgrass – this already has been done- for example, in the embargoed 

WBEA, Great Basin, and Nevada Ecoregional Assessment reports. If cheatgrass is a concern, it makes no sense to write off 

areas currently with less cheatgrass – as has been done in ID Pahsimeroi, Little Lost, Lemhi. Agencies can amend or alter 

rights-of-ways or leases.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

656. In 2004, several of these populations – Quinn Canyon Range NV, Twin Bridges MT, White Mountains CA/NV Pine Nut NV 

were described as “insufficient date for analysis”. To this day in 2012, NDOW and federal agencies have failed to provide 

current data on the Quinn and White Mountains populations. As part of this process, agencies must provide full and complete 

current data for all populations. All sagebrush habitats must be protected while this is being done, and the Priority and General 

Habitat segregation scheme must be immediately set aside. Agencies must admit if these populations have blinked out, have 

declined to drastically low levels, or have experienced significant range contraction. Small populations cannot just be 

routinely sacrificed if they are in lands coveted by the energy industry – as Doherty proposes and the NTT and IMs carry out.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

657. For example, the headwater springs, seeps, streams in northern Nevada and southern Idaho are already under great stress 

from historical and chronic ongoing livestock grazing disturbance. In areas suffering mining disturbance, aquifer drawdown 

processes are causing flow reductions, and springs are drying up altogether. The Core Model uses sage-grouse to essentially 

marginalize all non-sage-grouse habitat lands. Yet mining, energy or other development and/or continued livestock 

degradation of the nonsage- grouse or “lesser importance” lands would disrupt watershed processes, and lead to further 

declines in perennial surface flows – resulting in losses of essential sage-grouse brood rearing habitats. Use of this flawed 

IDMT Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-568 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

approach is likely to endanger many other species.

658. It is important that the agencies emphasize that any management changes that are undertaken must be linked to the population 

status of the bird and this must be conducted on a site‐specific basis. If sage grouse populations are stable, there should be no 

need to trigger additional management measures. If management changes are deemed necessary, those changes need to reflect 

the import of the habitat and account for the primary threats first.

IDMT Both flh0000GB

659. I urge you to preserve the sagebrush lands of the Sage Grouse in Colorado and the west. This endangered land‐nesting bird 

is of great importance to its sagebrush ecosystem. While many people urge expansion, development, and extraction of our 

Rocky Mountain region lands, I feel strongly that we must preserve nature‐including habitats for birds. Some people care about 

money ‐ this results in exploitation and destruction of species and environments which we can never replace.

I urge you to continue to protect the endangered sage grouse by working to conserve and restore it's natural 

ecosystem/environments.

MT-RM Both emc0205GB

660. Time has proven that northeast Montana has the best sage grouse habitat management on the continent. For the past 60 years, 

this land has been managed in partnership between ranches and the BLM. The RMP should preserve the sage grouse by 

continuing current management practices and by focusing on ways to keep this partnership strong.

MT-RM BLM emc0013RM

661. It has been my perception that the sage grouse populations have an established hold in the region.. The mutual partnerships 

between landowners, [ranchers and farmers], the FWP and the BLM, have been responsible and credited with this endeavor...

MT-RM BLM emc0017RM

662. The pipeline will bisect known migratory corridors for sage-grouse, as evidenced by the map below, which show satellite 

tracked daily movements of sage-grouse between Montana core areas 1 and 2 (red hatched areas) based on data collected by 

Rebecca Smith under the supervision of Dr. Dave Naugle (University of Montana). PS-10 and the associated transmission line 

are located in and adjacent to this migratory corridor. The movement data collected by Rebecca Smith and sage-grouse 

movement data collected from across the eastern region should be considered in your planning process. Furthermore, 

considerations of the importance of connectivity of sage-grouse habitats including those that extend beyond national borders 

should be a key consideration as the Canadian population of sage-grouse is unlikely to persist without the support of 

management actions by wildlife and land managers in the United States including the BLM.

*Included an attachment (map) 'Sage-grouse migration paths Fall 2010'

MT-RM Both emc0034RM

663. We also believe the impact of the pipeline on migratory corridors has been overlooked. While alternative B bisects only a 

small portion of Montana sage-grouse core area 1, it bisects key migratory pathways for sage-grouse coming from and moving 

to Canada. Because sage-grouse from core areas 1 and 2 provide ‘source’ populations for sage-grouse that are federally listed 

as endangered in Canada, it is imperative that we not disrupt their migration in this region. All pump stations and other 

permanent structures should be placed a minimum of 2 miles (3.2 km) from the nearest lek, with a preferred distance of >4 

miles (6.4 km) from active leks, based upon the best-available data from Naugle et al. (2011). Power lines should be buried 

whenever possible to decrease impacts from aerial predators. These recommendations hold for all types of oil and gas

development within the range of greater sage-grouse and should be applied to the Keystone XL pipeline on BLM lands without 

exception.

MT-RM Both emc0034RM

664. Northeast Montana has the healthiest, most diverse grassland ecosystem in the world. We have so many sage grouse that the MT-RM Both emc0028RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-569

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks is translocating some of them to Canada. This region's sage grouse production 

is due to decades of cooperation between ranchers and the BLM.

In the EIS, please include an analysis of the importance of this public-private partnership to the sage-grouse. Please explore 

things the BLM can do to strengthen this partnership by keeping ranches economically viable. When amending the RMPs, 

please protect northeast Montana from any changes in land management. Instead, this region's land use traditions should be 

used as a model for sage grouse conservation and restoration elsewhere.

665. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition and Montana Audubon nominate all BLM lands identified as core sage grouse habitat by 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks within the BLM Dillon Resource Area as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

(See enclosed map: “Proposed ACEC Boundaries to Protect Core Sage Grouse Areas”). This potential ACEC is in SageGrouse Management Zone IV and in large part encompasses all of the seasonal habitats supporting southwest Montana’s 

population of Sage-Grouse. While much of the population can be found yearlong in the proposed ACEC, in extreme winters 

some portion of the population also migrates south to Idaho in areas not covered by this nomination. Management Zone IV 

contains one of the highest reported densities of Greater Sage-Grouse (Fed. Reg. 3/4/10 ).

MT-RM BLM emc0248GB

666. In the northeast sections of Montana the Sage Grouse population is so healthy that some are translocated to Canada by the 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

MT-RM Both rmc0007RM

667. It should also be constantly reiterated, that Montana and Wyoming have, what are considered to be, sustainable sage grouse 

populations. BLM and the state agencies need to keep this at the forefront, when deboerating this issue. It is imperative, that 

you avoid hurting our livestock operations. These ranches are extremely important to the local economy, and are a good, safe 

source of food for our nation. It is also worth noting that this food source is grown from an ecologically healthy, renewable

resource.

MT-RM Both rmc0012RM, 

rmc0022RM

668. The Little Missouri Grazing Association (LMGA) has taken a pro active approach towards the sage-grouse. We have two years 

of habitat monitoring data collected. We also have data showing historical grazing use showing that the stocking rates have not 

changed in many years. The land use practices have not changed. We have no oil & gas impact and no industrial encroachment.

ND Both emc0039RM

669. We also encourage you to review requirements regarding activity near leks and throughout sage grouse habitats. We support 

efforts to update management plans based on latest research findings and contemporary technical information.

ND Both emc0153RM

670. Elko County believes that there are many factors that have led to the decline of Greater Sage-Grouse populations in Northern 

Nevada, some of which we can control and many that we cannot control.

NVCA Both rmc0026GB

671. Hunting: Although hunting may represent annual loss of individuals through harvest, its impacts to the species are less 

significant as compared to other contributing factors. Additionally, the wing harvest data that hunting provides gives biologists 

comprehensive data that indicates age and annual recruitment. Please consider maintaining hunting opportunities for 

sage-grouse within Nevada.

NVCA Both emc0180GB

672. As an avid hiker and outdoor enthusiast residing in Esmeralda County for 26 years, I have hiked extensively in areas designated 

as sage grouse habitat on various information maps. Areas shaded in Esmeralda County have sparse populations of chucker, 

NVCA Both emc0023GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-570 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

quail, dove, other bird species including predatory birds; however, as an Esmeralda County Commissioner for eight years, 

with a closerelationship to my constituents in Esmeralda County, I have no reports of sage grouse sightings in our county.

Additionally, as the originator of the 10th annual (2011) 34 mile one day charity hike over the Silver Peak Range, and 

participant for ten years, I have not observed one sage grouse in the designated areas I train in (hiking cross country for the 

past 26 years).

673. According to the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioner's report in August 2011 , an estimated 6.3% of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse in Nevada were harvested in 2009. From 2004-2008, the fall harvest average was 3.52%. NV Energy requests that 

hunting, as well as all other land uses that have the potential to impact sage grouse, be fully considered in the EIS.

NVCA Both emc0198GB

674. read the history of Nv from the time of the first white explorers who kept pretty good journals and you will see that the 

sage-grouse were mentioned vary rarely in fact they were not even a significant part of the Indian diet. Now we have probably 

100,000 sage-grouse across the state and a huntable population year after year hardly a reason to list the sagegrouse as 

endangered.

NVCA Both emc0187GB

675. Buckhorn Land and Livestock, LLC owns the Winnemucca Ranch and has a Grazing allotment located in the Virginia Range in 

Nevada. We have owned the ranch and operated the Winnemucca Ranch allotment since 2005. When we purchased the 

ranch in 2005 we noticed a declined population of the sage-grouse within our allotment. However, since 2005 we have noticed 

increased number of sage-grouse on the range over the seven year period we have owned the ranch while at the same time 

ran cattle on this same allotment, Thru our grazing practices we don't allow our cattle to camp on riparian areas as we believe 

in keeping our herds moving thru the range.

NVCA Both emc0232GB

676. One of the “informational” documents that was handed out at the March 2012 BLM oil and gas lease sale (2005 Finding) listed 

oil and gas at the sixth largest threat to Sage Grouse. Interestingly, the Department of Interior’s wildlife management tactics 

were not even listed. I think that if there we a more comprehensive study conducted it would be discovered that the reason 

Sage Grouse populations dropped in Nevada several years ago was because the Department of the Interior attempted to 

control a Mormon Cricket infestation with poison that was toxic to Sage Grouse. Perhaps the best method of protecting Sage 

Grouse would be to provide better management techniques that would not poison the existing population.

NVCA Both emc0245GB

677. At the time of submission of scoping period comments for 76 FR 77008-77011, population estimates of the greater 

sage-grouse have not been verified in the State of Nevada. The Association asks that population trends be confirmed and 

released to the public for review before the further development of the EIS or SEIS. It is policy of the Association to support 

the conservation of wildlife species and the maintenance and/or restoration of their habitat but this goal cannot be achieved 

without an understanding of the current population trend.

NVCA Both emc0328GB

678. Also critical for this process to work is accurate up-to-date information on Greater Sage-Grouse populations, trends, 

distributions and priority habitats in Population Management Units (PMU) in Nevada and eastern California. We do know a lot 

about the species' life history, populations and habitat requirements in our region, but we certainly do not know everything. 

We appreciate the intense effort of state agencies which was used to develop a map of priority habitats and leks now posted 

on the agencies' websites. Additional research needs to be done to identify and ground-truth priority habitats and locate 

additional leks, as well as to figure out how many leks have been lost due to disturbance.

NVCA Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-571

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

679. SNWA respectfully requests that the EIS consider and discuss the following:

the delineation of priority habitat and the justification for determining priority habitat. We encourage the use of best scientific 

data sets and occurrence data when determining priority habitat. In particular, please identify how priority habitat has been

designated in Cave Valley. The future process for updating the habitat categories.

NVCA Both rmc0069GB

680. SNWA respectfully requests that the EIS consider and discuss the following:

adjustments to conservation measures in order to address local ecological site variability;

NVCA Both rmc0069GB

681. SNWA respectfully requests that the EIS consider and discuss the following:

permitting and authorization specifics for projects that cannot avoid priority habitat;

NVCA Both rmc0069GB

682. We also are concerned that relying on the Nevada Department of Wildlife's habitat maps could result in inaccurate and overly 

broad habitat designations, unless on-the-ground verification is allowed.

NVCA Both emc0277GB

683. On March 9, 2012, the BLM and the Forest Service released the Nevada preliminary habitat maps just two weeks before the 

close of comments on the EIS scoping process.9 Two weeks is insufficient time to fully evaluate the ramifications of the habitat 

maps;

NVCA Both emc0277GB

684. It is difficult to determine the precise basis for which areas were classified as Preliminary Priority Habitat or Preliminary 

General Habitat. The objective criteria for such designations, as well as any subjective components considered, should be 

provided to the public. Furthermore, we note that the NDOW maps are only a "starting point" and the boundaries "are 

expected to change." The maps also were developed on a landscape-scale and were not intended to identify project-level 

habitat boundaries. Thus, the NDOW maps provide no certainty regarding the geographic scope of the proposed EISs and 

make it difficult, if not impossible, to fully assess the potential applicability of conservation measures and to provide complete 

comments on their effects.

NVCA Both emc0277GB

685. These flaws demonstrate the necessity for on-the-ground site assessments and that actual land-use decisions cannot be 

reliably based on the NDOW mapping. Our experience is that on-the-ground verification is the only way to assure the 

accuracy of habitat maps, which may focus on concepts of historic range without adequately considering the effects of fire, 

ecological succession, and incursion of invasive species. Based on our preliminary review of the NDOW maps, some of the 

areas designated as Priority or General Habitat do not appear to reflect the current conditions. Whether this is due to dated 

or inaccurate information, or simply a function of broad-scale mapping, the proposed habitat maps appear to contain errors 

and simplifications. These errors can be addressed during baseline data collection, but only if the mapping effort is ongoing. 

When the agencies released the Nevada maps, they acknowledged the necessity for such ground-truthing, stating: "To apply 

these results to specific locations it is necessary to conduct a field investigation by a qualified biologist for the purpose of 

impact assessment."

NVCA Both emc0277GB

686. vi. Affected environment As discussed above, it is difficult to fully assess the possible effects of the proposed EISs because the 

agencies have not completed the Priority and General Habitat maps. See supra Section II. Further, the agencies have not 

NVCA Both emc0277GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-572 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

provided a clear, uniform definition of Priority and General Habitat. Thus, we cannot independently analyze the locations of 

where the conservation measures will potentially apply and cannot provide a complete response to the agencies' requests for 

comments. In fact, the agencies have issued varying habitat definitions, adding to the confusion of the scope of the affected 

environment. For example, the BLM's Technical Report defines Priority and General Habitat as: Priority Habitat Areas "that 

have the highest conservation value to maintaining or increasing sage-grouse populations. These areas would include breeding, 

late brood-rearing, winter concentration areas, and where known, migration or connectivity corridors.,,27 General Habitat 

Areas of "occupied (seasonal or year-round) habitat outside of priority habitat.,,28 On the other hand, the agencies' Nevada 

offices have adopted different habitat definitions based on the Nevada Department of Wildlife's categories: Priority Habitat 

Category 1 - Essential/Irreplaceable Habitat: Areas covering the lek itself and associated nesting habitat. Areas covering more 

mesic habitats used for nesting and brood raising. Category 2 -: Important Habitat: Suitable and diverse winter habitats and 

high quality brood rearing habitats.3o General Habitat Category 3 - Habitat of Moderate Importance: Areas that "are not 

meeting their full potential due to any number of factors, but serve some benefit to sage-grouse populations. These habitats 

can serve as nesting, brood rearing, winter or transitional habitat, but are marginal.,,31 As discussed above, the agencies 

should explain the designations and provide for on-the-ground confirmation to ensure accurate implementation of the 

conservation measures. The agencies should not leave the public, including affected industries, to guess which areas will be 

impacted by the proposed conservation measures.

687. The Rochester Mine is located in the Humboldt PMU with the closest viable population in the Sonoma PMU. With long-term 

viability considered to be very low, how is BLM going to manage proposed projects in areas such as these? If priority habitat

areas are consistent with previous NDOW sage grouse habitat maps, the Rochester mine would have more than 3% of the 

habitat area with direct surface impacts. Since all viable populations are several mountain ranges away, how can BLM justify 

identifying areas in and surrounding the Rochester mine as priority habitat? It would seem that priority habitat should be 

focused in areas where viable populations exist or are somewhat close to be able to expand. A clear focus area of the EIS 

scoping document must be appropriate habitat classification to avoid habitat designation in areas that have little to no 

biological value for the Sage Grouse.

NVCA Both emc0302GB

688. In the National Technical Team's (NTT) Document (December 21, 2011) it is proposed that for saleable mineral materials all 

priority habitat areas should be closed to mineral material sales. There are no suggestions for off-site mitigation which appears 

counter to the multiple-use mandate of BlM administered public lands. CRI believes that off-site mitigation should be an option 

for saleable mineral materials, especially in habitat areas where no viable sage grouse population exists.

NVCA Both emc0302GB

689. Historical evidence indicates a positive correlation between livestock numbers and sage grouse populations. NVCA Both emc0304GB

690. Therefore, a landscape-scale map cannot be used to make sound land use decisions pertaining to mineral resources. Field 

studies will be required to identify areas with both mineral potential and sage-grouse habitat. As discussed below, BLM must 

manage these areas to comply with statutory directives in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to achieve an 

NVCA Both emc0327GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-573

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

appropriate balance to protect sage-grouse habitat while at the same time recognizing the legal rights of claim owners to 

explore for and develop minerals on public lands.

691. As discussed above, NVMRA member companies have worked with BLM to conduct their mineral exploration projects to 

avoid impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat. The site specific measures that BLM requires on a project-by-project basis are 

examples of the regulatory mechanisms already in place that require project proponents to protect and conserve sage-grouse 

habitat while at the same time authorizing mineral exploration and development activities. This balanced approach to land use 

management complies with FLPMA and demonstrates that sagegrouse habitat protection and mineral exploration and 

development can and do co-exist.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

692. FLPMA, the U.S. Mining Law, and BLM policies that implement these laws such as the 43 C.F.R. § 3809 surface management 

regulations appropriately recognize that mineral deposits are rare and unique geologic features that can only be developed 

where they are found. Unfortunately, the NTT Report proposal to withdraw lands with sage-grouse habitat from mineral 

entry does not recognize this. The EIS docwnents must address this fact and evaluate alternatives that focus on the fixed 

location and spatial constraints associated with mineral development. At a minimwn, the EIS docwnents should evaluate two 

alternatives in the context of minimizing resource conflicts with minerals:1) off-site mitigation; and 2) no-net loss of habitat. 

These alternatives are described below. The Off-Site Mitigation Alternative: In locations where mineral resources are 

co-located with priority sage-grouse habitat, off-site mitigation should be the principal land management tool to minimize 

impacts to sage-grouse habitat and to resolve resource conflicts. Rather than prohibit mineral project development in habitat 

areas for project components that cannot be moved (i.e., the ore body) and/or where alternative locations for ancillary 

facilities are impractical or do not exist due to topographic, property, or other constraints, off-site mitigation should be the 

standard approach. The No Net Loss of Sage-Grouse Habitat Alternative: This alternative is related to the Off-Site 

Mitigation Alternative. Unavoidable impacts to priority sage-grouse habitat by mining of mineral deposits in areas with priority 

sage-grouse habitat should be mitigated through off-site mitigation measures that replace lost habitat using the principle of no 

net loss of habitat. This alternative would off-set impacts due to mineral development and could result in significant 

private-sector investment in habitat enhancement measures.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

693. Working closely with BLM and the Nevada Department of Wildlife ("NDOW") Eureka Moly developed an extensive Sage 

Grouse Mitigation Plan that includes designed (i.e., engineered) and administrative mitigation measures. Examples of these 

mitigation measures include burying new transmission lines and installing anti -perching devices on existing overhead 

transmission lines, locating equipment in areas that are screened from view from habitat areas or are minimally visible from 

these areas, and imposing seasonal constraints on certain activities during the breeding and nesting seasons. The foregoing 

demonstrates that BLM already has the regulatory mechanisms to work with project proponents like Eureka Moly to design 

sage-grouse mitigation measures that can eliminate significant impacts to the species. We suggest that these existing 

mechanisms preclude the need for the wholesale adoption of the restrictions proposed in 1M 2012-044 and in the NTT 

NVCA BLM emc0335GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-574 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Report.

694. Several years ago, a biologist was visiting our ranch conducting an update to the 1909 survey conducted by the University of 

California of the fauna in our area. The subject of sage-grouse came up in our conversations, and her unsolicited response was 

that if one wanted to see sagegrouse, go where the cattle were. This opinion was reinforced to me by the recent article 

published March 5, 2012 by Assemblyman Ira Hansen in the Silver Pinyon Journal (Guest Commentary: The Introduction of 

Agriculture and the impact on Sage Grouse). In this article, Assemblyman Hansen summarizes a number of important points 

which led to the increase in sage-grouse populations with the introduction of agriculture to the Great Basin and the 

population's subsequent decline. Some points he raised which I found especially pertinent to Quinn River Ranch included 

habitat changes, livestock grazing, water development, and predator control.

NVCA Both rmc0065GB

695. The government has been managing 87% of Nevada land since the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. During this BLM management 

period, sage grouse populations have peaked and decreased. When the population peaked, there were many more sheep and 

cattle grazing on the BLM land, predator control was a major investment with 1080 being used prevalently, fire was used to 

control total sagebrush thickets, invasion of Junipers and wild horses were controlled and sagebrush range conversion to 

crested wheatgrass was encouraged. When the BLM started changing their policies from the past ones to the current ones 

correlates with the beginning ofthe decrease of sage grouse populations.

NVCA BLM fxc0013GB

696. Sage grouse are an important part of the ecosystem in northeastern Nevada, however, an ecosystem can only exist if there is 

a true balance amongst the animals and forage that exist with in them.

NVCA Both fxc0016GB

697. Our family has been ranching outside Mountain City, Nevada since 1887 and through the years our family has experienced 

many changes to the area we live in. During my childhood (1960's) Ido not recall seeing very many sage grouse, in fact here 

recently is the most experience I have had with this bird. However, in my childhood I heard stories of sage grouse dinners and 

there was talk about the number of sage grouse in the area. In fact, they were a regular part of the diet. This was at a time when 

there were more people and livestock in the area than there is currently. In the Mountain City area in particular, at the turn 

of the century through the 1960's, there were a number of mines in operation, as well as livestock grazing, logging, and a larger 

population than today. The mining officially ended by the mid- 1970's, as well as the logging. The number of cattle and sheep 

in the area has exponentially declined since the early part of the 20th century and the human population has as well.

NVCA Both fxc0016GB

698. How many Sage Grouse does the USFWS want to be maintained in order to not be listed? NVCA Both fxc0014GB

699. Some birds also occur in a nadir of non-mapped sagebrush habitat, as well. This is ignored altogether, despite land areas having 

been identified as necessary for restoration. The reality of the mapping and habitat identification efforts to date is that they do 

not depict or protect many important seasonal habitat use areas required by sage-grouse, a landscape species. Nor is this just 

a mapping error due to incomplete knowledge. NDOW and Nevada BLM’s application of this new Model and its map legend, 

for example, show how habitats are excluded from the Priority Category on purpose. See NDOW Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Categorization Executive Summary March 2012 and NDOW Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Categorization White 

Paper, describing the process, five habitat categories, and how categories were lumped to fit the BLM Priority and General 

habitat segregation scheme. Even occupied areas of Moderate importance and transitional ranges used by sage-grouse were 

NVCA Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-575

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

not considered priority habitat for this landscape bird in the Nevada model.

700. Some states, like Idaho, released overwhelmingly lek area-based maps with the IMs that omitted critical intact occupied 

sagebrush habitats. Others, like Nevada, did not provide maps until early March 2012. See discussions below about Idaho and 

Nevada mapping concerns. To its credit, Nevada took much more care in mapping than Idaho, but still segregated large areas 

and failed to have any updated information on some Population Management Units (PMUs) that may be on the verge of 

extinction.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

701. BLM must examine all the Nevada PMUs and other functional populations or biologically meaningful units identified for 

managing sage-grouse and tracking change. Agencies must determine changes and declines, and viability in the short, mid and 

long term, including changes since the 2004 NDOW Sage-grouse Plan, the 2006 Idaho Plan, and Plans in all other states.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

702. If agencies persist with the deeply flawed PPH, General and Non habitat segregation of sagebrush landscapes, then the EIS must 

fully examine the impacts of development in General or non-habitat and the sacrifices of it that will occur. Given the 

tremendous impact that development is now known to have (see for example news of recent Powder River Basin study by 

Naugle et al. showing the inadequacies of the Core Model and the need to protect habitats over far greater areas than the 

limited lek-derived Doherty et al. distances used in the core/Priority Models), how long will the BLM persist with this flawed 

Core and core-derived scheme? Under an honest assessment of the ecological harm that would be done under development 

scenarios, and continued chronic grazing disturbance, then what would actually happen to all the seasonal habitats required by 

a local sage-grouse population, or PMU? Look at the Nevada habitat mapping, for example. What would the effects be of 

foreseeable development in all the blue or white area stripes through the pink habitat stripes? Just because a development 

occurs in an area segregated by agencies into a habitat sacrifice category does not mean that the Footprint or intrusion of that 

activity on the grouse habitat and population would not be very significant Example: Gold mines, Oil and Gas, industrial wind, 

industrial geothermal, industrial solar facilities situated in General or in Non-habitat would have a Footprint of noise, visual 

pollution, ancillary facilities and infrastructure, human disturbance, impacts to water tables, etc. that adversely impacts grouse 

in the Priority segregated habitats. This demonstrates flaws in this habitat segregation scheme. The cumulative impacts of all 

of these actions on actual populations and their viability must be assessed, not merely on sage-grouse lumped in VMZs or 

other contrivances that stymie clear understanding of actual populations and their habitats and viability.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

703. ..Maintain or increase current populations, manage or restore priority areas so that at least 70% of the land cover [in priority 

habitats only] provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage-grouse needs." Where in the mapping for all these states to 

date has the BLM identified where land cover is adequate vs. inadequate? Wouldn’t "inadequate" areas be identified as 

restoration habitat, wouldn't it? Yet BLM Priority/General mapping as in the case of Idaho omits any clear distinction and 

understanding, and omits large areas of identified restoration habitat. In fact, Idaho's carefully identified restoration and key 

habitats from the 2006 Plan that have been used through 2010 are arbitrarily ignored by BLM in many areas in this process. 

The Nevada mapping and process is better - in that it uses more habitat categories and much more careful and thoughtful 

work went into it, but yet it still relegates many important areas to lesser importance once the Priority/General scheme is 

imposed.

NVCA BLM emc0411GB

704. The plight of the Clear Lake sage-grouse population also illustrates why this EIS process must be expanded to include USFWS NVCA Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-576 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

lands. Lek sites for this very small and isolated populations are located on USFWS lands. Nesting habitat and other seasonal 

habitat on located on Forest Service lands. So integrated actions must be developed under this EIS. Loss of the Clear Lake 

population, that is at perilously low numbers, will result in a further sage-grouse range contraction in the CA-OR region. We 

also stress that other very small populations in NE California are in grave trouble. This includes birds near Alturas and the

Likely Tablelands area, where BLM’s new RMP Opened a vacant allotment to grazing use at Yankee Jim.

705. We are very concerned that segregation and zoning of lands based on the NTT’s RRP and GPH models will both allow 

widespread harm to continue to occur even in Core/Priority areas, and will also result in agencies ignoring full consideration 

of harms to other rare, important and declining species of development in all non-Priority areas. The Core/Priority habitat 

scheme, as it is being developed and Final maps are appearing in March 2012 in Nevada shows how arbitrary some of this is. 

For example, the methods by which the NDOW map was developed that are described in the White Paper are not 

reproducible. Different biologists with different experiences may make different judgment calls. The Nevada mapping appears 

to sacrifice brood rearing and winter habitats many of which are mapped as habitat of Moderate importance. When BLM and 

NDOW imposed the artificial category of Priority habitat, the agencies only selected what they had termed as 

Essential/Irreplaceable Habitat and Important Habitat as Priority Habitat. Moderate habitat was not included. The White Paper

defines Moderate Importance Habitat as: These habitats are those that are not meeting their full potential due to any number 

of factors, but serve some benefit to sage-grouse populations. These habitats can serve as nesting, brood rearing, winter or 

transitional habitat, but are marginal. For the short-term, these habitats may only be of limited value on a seasonal basis, but 

could serve additional long-term values if certain habitat components (most importantly sagebrush) return to the site. But 

there won't be a long-term --- as the General habitat is sacrificed/undergoes development and continued degradation in the 

interim, or as a result of the EIS process. Also, this segregation helps agencies to avoid having to address instances of significant 

degradation by mapping degraded habitats out of Priority concern areas. The Nevada Priority/General maps also exclude any 

Category 4 habitat, (Low value/Transitional). Yet this must be included if agencies are seeking any recovery, as well as habitat 

connectivity and some winter habitats. Low value may be low value because of degradation. So instead of describing and 

addressing degradation to sustain populations in their occupied habitats, and increase abundance and expand distribution, 

agencies sacrifice these lands.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

706. The HTNF Website states that sage-grouse occur outside of the PMUs. See 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/htnf/home/?cid=stelprdb5357133 Where are the locations where sage-grouse currently occur 

outside PMUs? Why aren’t these lands, too, shown as critical connecting habitats? This seems essential in a state that has a 

natural layer of fragmentation, and which has suffered such extensive losses from mining, development, ag in valleys, 

BLM/Forest sagebrush treatments, etc. How do lands in PMUs compare to the historic range? How do occupied portions of 

PMUs compare to historic range? Nevada may be minimizing the importance of sagebrush habitats that are winter, connecting, 

or where intensive radio collar bird or other studies have not yet been done.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

707. Regarding this statement: These areas include breeding habitat (lek sites and nesting habitat), brood-rearing habitat, winter 

range, and important movement corridors. PPH primarily consists of sagebrush, but may also include riparian communities, 

perennial grasslands, agriculturally-developed land, and restored habitat, including recovering burned areas. We request that 

NDOW, BLM and the Forest provide more detailed mapping that identifies all of the following seasonal habitats as well as 

NVCA Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-577

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sagebrush, riparian, perennial grasslands native must be identified separately from non-native, ag-developed land, and restored 

habitat successfully restored lands must be separated from treated lands, weedlands that have resulted from fuels treatments,

etc. As we describe throughout just because an agency spent funds on projects does not mean that the claimed project 

benefits such as restoration or even successful rehab have actually been achieved on the ground. It is critical to identify areas 

of crested wheatgrass for removal, inter-seeding, etc. There is typically less suitable nesting cover, and crested wheatgrass 

limits forb and other native plant recovery. It is also very important to identify these areas to prevent federal agencies from 

proposing to mow or purge sagebrush when sagebrush has moved back in to some degree. Unfortunately, killing sagebrush in 

seedings, rather than acting to restore seedings, or at a minimum inter-seed seedings with less sagebrush has been proposed 

by Ely BLM and other offices in Nevada that seek to relentlessly alter, manipulate and destroy sagebrush and other woody 

vegetation communities.

708. NDOW White Paper March 2012: The paper describes the five categories of habitat, plus non-habitat. It has no category for 

historical habitat that has been lost. At a minimum, habitat of moderate importance and transitional range, as well as low value 

habitat that has mature or old growth sagebrush present, must be included as high value, or key, habitat. It is of great concern 

that human land-use development will be allowed to proceed, but detailed site-specific studies are not required. While 

sage-grouse may be broadly distributed, the habitat is peppered with holes, and often is highly degraded as well. There is 

extensive natural fragmentation all the Great Basin mountain ranges as well as salt desert habitats in valley bottoms. On top 

of this is a plethora of livestock, mining, energy, agency treatment, and fire disturbance adversely impacting remaining habitat 

quality and quantity. While sage-grouse may be considered an umbrella species by some, in Nevada the agency attitude (for 

example Ely BLM and ag interests supporting ranchers who seek continued destruction of sagebrush) towards mature and 

intact sagebrush communities is causing big leaks in the umbrella. In fact, the umbrella is collapsing in many areas as cheatgrass 

and other weeds sweep Ely treatments claimed to be for sage-grouse. Sage-grouse are being used as an excuse to radically 

alter sagebrush, and destroy old growth and mature pinyon-juniper as well as trees re-colonizing historic ranges. In fact, the 

Ely RMP proposes manipulation of fully 2/3 of the native vegetation communities an action likely to result in tremendous 

desertification and habitat loss for both sagebrush and pinyon-juniper dependent species. We are concerned that the NDOW 

report claims sage-grouse are an umbrella species for the pygmy rabbit when in fact, NDOW will promote Ely and Elko BLM 

and Forest Service projects like in the Santa Rosa RD projects that purposefully alter, reduce destroy denser sagebrush 

required by the pygmy rabbit. This is in part justified by claiming that sagebrush with good microbiotic crust understories and 

denser Wyoming sagebrush cover is somehow deficient based on biased soil inventories and then added onto this are claims 

that the community is decadent and only destroying it will somehow save it. When in fact, these are very important habitats 

that often support high densities of pygmy rabbit, sage sparrow, etc. NDOW also supports (as in the Montana Mountains) 

band-aid fencing projects of riparian or stringer meadow areas rather than an integrated hard look at livestock impacts. For 

sage-grouse in Nevada to be an umbrella species, NDOW needs to start sticking up for wildlife values, and not taking the easy 

route out by endorsing projects that alter sagebrush, destroy it in the process of a general purging of trees, or that serve to 

shift and intensify harmful livestock impacts in other areas as the agency currently is doing.

NVCA BLM emc0411GB

709. It sounds like after mapping, various staff looked at the polygon info and made some decisions. Is this replicable? They also

looked at the 75% Core Breeding Density Doherty 2010 Mapping, and thank goodness appear not to have relied too strongly 

NVCA BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-578 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

on the Core. We are glad to see the agencies acknowledging that focusing solely on the lek and a buffer around it does not 

adequately represent areas crucial to long-term survival of particular populations, especially migratory ones.

710. How did NDOW and BLM determine that habitats of moderate importance were not at potential? We are very concerned 

that agencies are writing off habitats with significant livestock degradation without considering alternatives such as removal 

of livestock so that passive restoration can occur. R-1, R-2, R-3 habitats could be included here. How was each decision made?

NVCA Both emc0411GB

711. We are glad to see NDOW admit that understory composition is difficult to identify using ESI and soil survey info, and “the 

accuracy of the R-1 and R-2 classifications was variable. We are very concerned that NDOW will support federal agencies 

writing off habitat because it does not contain ideal nesting characteristics but may be important in winter, and be the best 

remaining nesting habitat, or receive significantly less livestock disturbance during nesting, all of which may serve to make 

these sites very important habitats of high concern.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

712. White Paper at 7 lists several very imperiled PMUs where we believe NDOW cannot wait until the next version of mapping 

occurs as this could be several years. These very imperiled areas are: o Steptoe-Cave PMU; Here Ely BLM is right now 

conducting, and is proposing even more, large-scale sagebrush and tree destruction projects. Quinn PMU; The SWIP 

powerline was built right through this PMU, the Ely Westside EIS was issued (and withdrawn when WWP Appealed it), and 

agencies never bothered to even look for the grouse that inhabit these lands (if any still exist). o Nightingale PMU; o Sahwave 

1 and 2 PMUs; o Limbo PMU; o Majuba 1, 2, 4, and 5 PMUs; o East Range PMU; and Failure of NDOW year after year to even 

bother to look for leks in some of these areas (like Quinn) is a cause for great concern. These areas all must be examined as 

soon as possible and full information on the extent and severity of habitat loss must be incorporated into this EIS process. 

Urgent action is needed before Ely BLM destroys even more sagebrush habitat for the Quinn PMU, or Winnemucca BLM 

authorizes more mining, cell towers, and other disturbances in the very imperiled Nightingale, Sahwave, Limbo, Majuba, East 

Range areas or again permits scorched earth grazing in the associated Sonoma Range. By failing to provide up-to-date info on 

these PMUs, NDOW is masking the plight and range contractions of sage-grouse. Some of these populations are very likely to 

blink out before agencies ever get around to looking for them again, or lifting a finger to take actions to sustain them

NVCA Both emc0411GB

713. This statement shows why General Habitat, too, must be protected: however, PGH may also include areas of higher quality 

habitat that lacks bird survey and inventory data to support a priority habitat ranking. Just because studies have not been done, 

there is no reason to sacrifice habitat. Agencies will never know the scale and scope of losses under this habitat sacrificing 

scheme that BLM is already applying under the NTT without any critical NEPA hard look analysis.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

714. We are very concerned about the following statement: PGH provides some benefit to greater sage-grouse populations but, in 

many instances, lacks a key component, such as adequate shrub height or density or sufficient herbaceous understory In fact, 

nearly all the lands in many Priority Habitat sagebrush communities. For example, vast areas of all the PMUs in northeastern 

Nevada (Gollaher, Snake, O’Neil, North Fork, Tuscarora, Desert for example. If agencies are going to make this claim – which 

has long been an excuse used by Ely BLM and others to manipulate, alter, fragment and destroy sagebrush habitats critical to 

pygmy rabbit, sage sparrow loggerhead shrike, and sage-grouse, then all the data used in making these determinations in the 

mapping must be provided. Under this description,lands where Ely BLM treated by crushing and mowing sagebrush thus 

greatly reducing shrub cover would not be found suitable. Nor would the large areas of Elko BLM lands with a large amount 

of cheatgrass in the understory - such as in the Salmon River or Owyhee allotments that are mapped as being Priority habitat. 

NVCA Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-579

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

There seems to be a high degree of bias and arbitrariness in how this was applied. Plus what this seems most aimed at is 

promoting massive treatment alteration and destruction of the expanses of intact little-weeded Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities that have good microbiotic crusts, but may have less grass/forbs than the idealized NRCS description. We are 

concerned that this description is being used to sacrifice occupied habitats to unlimited new industrial development as well as 

a likely battery of forage/fuels “treatments

715. Tracking many leks just seems to vary considerably from one year to the next. For example, the Mount Grant PMU is 

recorded as having lek counts considerably lower than 2010 but it is noted that more eks were counted. What is NOT 

mentioned is if these are new leks, or that just more effort was put into counting known higher bird abundance leks (perhaps 

in response to finding low numbers of birds at some leks). The Mount Grant PMU has 12 known leks – of which 11 were 

surveyed. Of these 11, only 5 were active. How can this isolated PMU be considered viable? Or the Pine Nut PMU – with 1 lek 

and 18 birds. And why were no lek counts attempted in the White Mountains? The Pine Forest and Lone Willow PMUs appear 

to have low numbers of birds for leks – and many known leks without birds. On Page 7 Pine Forest appears to have continued 

declines. The report presents bleak news for the Sonoma PMU, Pershing County, and the Eugene Mountains area. 24 lek were 

surveyed in the Sonoma PMU, with only 6 active. There is only 1 known lek remaining in the Clan Alpine PMU. Its neighbor, 

Desatoya, is not abundant.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

716. It is hard to understand why leks were not surveyed in the Battle Mountain PMU. This is a very small PMU that faces severe 

livestock grazing degradation of its limited sagebrush upland and riparian meadow/spring/headwater riparian areas. This PMU 

also faces constant mining disturbance. It is isolated. Likewise, the small and beleaguered Fish Creek PMU, suffers from mining 

disturbance and chronic grazing degradation and livestock facilities degrading habitats and also not sampled. A lot of the small 

PMUs were not sampled. It is curious that once again no information was collected on the Kawich PMU. The situation with 

Kawich parallels the Quinn situation. Both PMUs are located on the southern edge of sage-grouse range – and appear to be 

being willfully ignored by federal and state agencies. Do a very few sagegrouse still remain? And if so –where? Or has 

sage-grouse range now shrunk, and the PMUs may no onger exist? This is also a concern at least for Quinn, because Ely BLM 

has conducted one of its sagebrush destruction projects in sagebrush lands located near the sites of the last known leks. We 

note that this situation appears to be paralleled in southern areas of Lincoln County as well. While commenting on the Ely 

RMP and reviewing the preceding Land Use Plan, WWP saw that areas near Patterson Wash that formerly had had several leks 

were now claimed by BLM to no longer be occupied. This Patterson Wash area had been radically altered by BLM crested 

wheatgrass seedings, intensive livestock grazing, and wells and other water developments that have extended intensive 

livestock grazing impacts. The report also curiously omits any sampling of areas where leks are very likely to have been 

reduced in numbers, or lost altogether. It is alarming that the Jarbidge country “Islands” area was not surveyed. These are the 

leks and habitats that were greatly mpacted by the Murphy Complex blaze, as well as the Forest “controlled” Slide Rock fire 

that predictably blew up, and raged out of control after having initially been nursed along by the Forest. It then consumed 

significant areas of remaining sagebrush habitats on Forest lands right by the southern extent of the Murphy Blaze. The same 

livestock permittees run livestock on BLM and Forest lands here. Large-scale losses have been documented in Idaho across 

the state line – yet even though the BLM lands in Nevada are managed by the Jarbidge BLM office, Nevada’s lack of surveys foil 

complete understanding of the impacts of these habitat losses.

NVCA Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-580 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

717. We believe to have any valid understanding of populations, efforts must be made to survey leks both large and small and get 

a solid idea of what is happening with fire and other effects.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

718. The next generation of analyses to direct conservation action should be two fold. First, there is a need to support 

implementation of core regions with studies that document seasonal habitat use and migration patterns of radio-marked 

sage-grouse (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, Doherty et al. 2008) to ensure identified priority landscapes meet all seasonal habitat 

needs. Second, incorporation of future modeling of other relevant risks, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invasion, to 

core regions will ensure gains in conservation will not be offset by unevaluated risks. Well, there is nothing in the Makela and 

Majors Idaho White Paper about risk of cheatgrass, is there? Yet ID set about chopping off habitats with this score scheme, it 

appears without assessing risk. It does not appear that Nevada assessed risk, either. So habitat segregation is occurring in lands 

most vulnerable to cheatgrass without assessing risk. Precautionary management requires that agencies do these studies first

– before sacrificing habitat to the oil and gas, wind or other industries. There is no going back, and replacing habitat sacrificed 

under the core or priority scheme models. Regarding cheatgrass – this already has been done- for example, in the embargoed 

WBEA, Great Basin, and Nevada Ecoregional Assessment reports. If cheatgrass is a concern, it makes no sense to write off 

areas currently with less cheatgrass – as has been done in ID Pahsimeroi, Little Lost, Lemhi. Agencies can amend or alter 

rights-of-ways or leases.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

719. In 2004, several of these populations – Quinn Canyon Range NV, Twin Bridges MT, White Mountains CA/NV Pine Nut NV 

were described as “insufficient date for analysis”. To this day in 2012, NDOW and federal agencies have failed to provide 

current data on the Quinn and White Mountains populations. As part of this process, agencies must provide full and complete 

current data for all populations. All sagebrush habitats must be protected while this is being done, and the Priority and General 

Habitat segregation scheme must be immediately set aside. Agencies must admit if these populations have blinked out, have 

declined to drastically low levels, or have experienced significant range contraction. Small populations cannot just be 

routinely sacrificed if they are in lands coveted by the energy industry – as Doherty proposes and the NTT and Ims carry out.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

720. The ODFW EIS states that all types of land use in the eastern Oregon have probably contribute to the Sage Grouse decline. 

While this may be true, the heaviest impact come from the Activities described as Listing Factors.

EIS Listing Factors included are:

- Prescribed Fire

- Livestock Grazing

- Juniper expansion

- Invasive Vegetation and Vegetation treatments

- Realty

- Energy Development and Transmission

- Climate Change

- Predation

- West Nile Virus

- Wild Fire

OR Both rmc0036GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-581

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

- Recreation

- Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms

721. Here in Oregon, we are concerned that this sage grouse planning process may place undue reliance on ODFW’s sage grouse 

strategy which does not go far enough to conserve the species. We fully support the concept of protecting core habitat, but 

this mapping process was fraught with non-scientific policy judgments (e.g. carving out areas of interest to energy developers) 

that must be brought to light and carefully examined in the NEPA process.

OR Both emc0078GB

722. The BLM/USFS are reminded that the sage‐grouse situation and its improving population numbers within the State of Oregon 

is likely to be different than in other Western States where activities, different than those occurring within Oregon, may 

present situations of greater fragmentation of connectable habitat, or the loss of suitable habitat, that may adversely impact 

the sage‐grouse species. A primary concern is that the BLM/USFS does not adopt a “national” strategy believing that “One 

national strategy, will fit all State situations.”

OR Both emc0129GB

723. We support the idea of linking management of ecological processes to improved long‐term quality and abundance of 

sage‐grouse habitat. To that end we propose that BLM and USFS begin their National Sage‐Grouse Planning Strategy by 

assembling state‐and‐transition models that broadly describe sage‐grouse habitat, and the ecological and management factors 

which influence change. This need not be an overly detailed exercise; for example, a generalized

model for Wyoming big sagebrush would be pertinent to tens of millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat. These generalized 

efforts could then be linked to more specific models at state and local levels that would serve as working blueprints to 

promote actions which cause plant communities to move in a direction consistent with sage‐grouse habitat management

objectives. We have appended a list of references which we feel encapsulate the breadth of what we know, don’t know, and 

need to know regarding the ecology and management of sagegrouse habitat throughout the range of the species. These 

references (and references cited therein) could be used as building blocks to construct and/or reinforce an ecologically‐based

approach to management of sage‐grouse habitat that recognizes both the complexity of ecosystem challenges as well as 

opportunities for iterative improvement of sage‐grouse habitat resources.

OR Both emc0192GB

724. Calico has closely reviewed the recent document: Greater Sage-Grouse Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to 

Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat (April, 2011) within the context of the BLM and USFS announced intent to 

prepare EIS's and Supplemental EIS's to evaluate greater sage-grouse r.onservation meBsures in land use plans in ten western 

states, and specifically Oregon. Several key and pertinent findings presented in the document are as follows.

-Currently Oregon greater sage-grouse numbers and status are not outside the range of natural variation.

- A central goal of the strategy is to maintain or enhance the current range and distribution of sagebrush habitats in Oregon.

- A key recommended management feature is voluntary gUidelines designed to maintain or enhance the quality of current 

habitats.

-These conservation guidelines or measures should involve land owners, other land developers, and local land managers.

OR Both rmc0074GB

725. Finally, OSGA encourages the agency to take into account the research by NRCS showing a complimentary relationship 

between sage-grouse conservation and grazing. The scientific research conducted by NRCS clearly shows that grazing can 

actually improve sage-grouse habitat. It is important for this research to be taken into consideration as the agency proceeds 

OR Both emc0309GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-582 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

in developing an EIS and SEIS.

726. The south Warner region has been recognized as one of the most important "sage-grouse strongholds," throughout the Great 

Basin. The relative abundance of sage-grouse in this region underlines the fact that well-managed grazing is entirely compatible 

with sage-grouse conservation; many of our members have been successfully grazing cattle on permits with substantial 

sage-grouse populations for generations. A number of District members have also been working closely with the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to reclaim important sage-grouse habitat on their private land by removing 

encroaching juniper. Our community is dedicated to the responsible stewardship and conservation of the greater sagegrouse; 

the enviable populations of sage-grouse in this region demonstrates that ranching has a vital role to play in that process.

OR Both rmc0078GB

727. Any EIS or SEIS developed must also recognize and incorporate the extensive research that has already been conducted by the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on the complimentary relationship between sage-grouse 

conservation and grazing. According to NRCS, ''the same factors that negatively affect sage-grouse also negatively affect the 

health, productivity, and sustainability of native grazing lands. Therefore, improvements to benefit sage-grouse also benefit 

grazing lands and the ranchers that depend on them."

OR Both rmc0078GB

728. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is an iconic species in Oregon’s high desert. Oregon sage-grouse 

populations and sagebrush habitats comprise about 20% of the North American range-wide distribution of the species. 

Therefore, management actions in Oregon have implications on a range-wide scale. Population fluctuations and declines in 

Oregon during the past century are similar to those documented throughout the species’ range.1 Because Oregon contains 

some of the largest expanses of relatively intact sagebrush habitat in North America, and coupled with relatively minimal 

threats of oil, gas or coal-bed methane development, conservation and protection of sage-grouse in Oregon is extraordinarily 

important to the species’ survival and recovery range-wide.2

OR Both emc0385GB

729. Habitat fragmentation and disturbance from large-scale development, roads, and agriculture across much of the Greater 

sage-grouse’s range has contributed to significant population declines over the past century.3 If current trends persist, many 

local populations may disappear in the next several decades, with the remaining fragmented population vulnerable to 

extinction. It is in the BLM’s best interest to reduce fragmentation and limit and avoid development in areas identified as core 

sage-grouse habitat.

OR Both emc0385GB

730. Other factors that have contributed to declines include: altered and unnatural fire regimes, which are influenced by human 

suppression; climate change and altered vegetative ecosystems; encroachment of juniper trees on sagebrush habitats, which 

has increased because of fire suppression, livestock grazing, and climatic influences over the last century or more; high road 

densities, which fragment sagebrush habitats; various types of energy development and utility corridors; and land use issues 

such as urban development, agriculture, and water development. Of future threats, we feel large-scale development and the 

infrastructure associated with such projects, especially as we expand energy development in Oregon, could significantly 

contribute to population loss.

OR Both emc0385GB

731. ODFW’s strategy is based on a core habitat approach whereby the agency maps important sage-grouse habitat areas based on OR Both emc0385GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-583

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

lek density and connectivity. We strongly support measures to prohibit development in areas defined as core habitat and feel 

this policy is necessary to maintain vital sage-grouse habitat. Although the ODFW plan lacks important mechanisms for 

enforcement and implementation, it nevertheless takes an important step in the formulation of strong conservation measures 

required to protect this keystone species. Despite the attempt by ODFW to use the most recent science and conserve this 

species given the legal uncertainties related to ESA listing, changes occurred to the habitat maps based on non-scientific 

decision making, including omitting areas with speculative energy development. The BLM should be aware of the “revisions” 

that occurred to Oregon’s “Core Area Maps” and base decisions on the most recent and defensible science.

732. Identify Important Habitats: Identify areas of high biological value for sage-grouse, including important seasonal areas and 

migratory corridors that can be permanently set-aside from large-scale development and managed with emphasis on not only 

maintaining, but enhancing greater sage-grouse populations.

OR Both emc0385GB

733. The plight of the Clear Lake sage-grouse population also illustrates why this EIS process must be expanded to include USFWS 

lands. Lek sites for this very small and isolated populations are located on USFWS lands. Nesting habitat and other seasonal 

habitat on located on Forest Service lands. So integrated actions must be developed under this EIS. Loss of the Clear Lake 

population, that is at perilously low numbers, will result in a further sage-grouse range contraction in the CA-OR region. We 

also stress that other very small populations in NE California are in grave trouble. This includes birds near Alturas and the 

Likely Tablelands area, where BLM’s new RMP Opened a vacant allotment to grazing use at Yankee Jim.

OR Both emc0411GB

734. Wayne County Commissioners submit the following comments in response to the scoping notice for the National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. Our comments are applicable only to the Parker Mountain population.

UT Both

735. Findings by the Working Group have determined that:

- By following guidelines established by the Working Group, livestock grazing does not adversely affect habitat or populations.

- Populations are increasing.

- Populations will sustain limited hunting.

UT Both

736. Several factors have changed sage-grouse habitat in northern Utah, the important ones are: inappropriate livestock 

mangement, vegetative manipulations not beneficial to sage-grouse, fire with subsequent loss of habitat, plant succession 

conjenction with invasive species. These must be addressed to prevent listing of sage-grouse.

UT Both cfc0018GB

737. The conservation district and private landowners here in southern Utah are engaged with working interagency Sage Grouse 

groups to protect and enhance the Sage Grouse populations in the district and it's watersheds. Conservation projects and 

monitoring strategies are in place. Education of the Sage Grouse and it's crucial habitat needs are also being implemented and

planned. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been expended affecting Sage Grouse habitat over several thousand acres of 

state, federal, and private agricultural and rangelands.

UT Both emc0178GB

738. Subsequently the district does not believe the data warrants the Sage Grouse listing since many conservation efforts have 

been, and will continue to be, effective in sustaining, expanding and improving Sage Grouse habitat in southern Utah and within 

the Kane County Conservation District.

UT Both emc0178GB

739. The district and it's conservation partners further believe that Sage Grouse populations will be sustained and even increase 

without the need for listing as planning, monitoring and implementation of conservation efforts continue.

UT Both emc0178GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-584 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

740. Blue Mountain in north eastern Utah has a good sage grouse population but it could be increased with very little effort and 

hopefully not too much expense. The habitat on Blue Mt. can be improved by simply incorporating things that have been 

successfully implemented all over the country.

UT Both emc0406GB

741. I do not agree that Sage Grouse numbers are declining in our area. (Rich county Ut, Uinta and Lincoln county WY). Our 

families have operated on this land since the early 1900: My father had the opportunity to homestead in Lincoln County WY. 

His history stated that in the 1930 Sage Grouse were few and far between, do in part to drought and predators. In the late 

1950 they had recovered and were doing well until the late 1960 when two high power transmission lines were constructed 

between Kemmerer wy and Ogden Ut. The power lines were not the problem, but the construction crews hunted the sage 

grouse from a fifty mile wide corridor along the power line resulting in very low numbers of Sage Grouse. They have since 

recovered because of better habitat and the absence of predators

UT Both emc0137GB

742. To the contrary, the state tirmly believes that sage-grouse popUlations in Utah are in good condition, are receiving significant 

management attention and, therefore, do not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act. The state will challenge a 

proposed listing whenever and wherever necessary. The state requests that the BLM and Forest Service receive, review and 

fully analyze all evidence offered by the state and others in support of its position that a listing is not warranted as part of the 

analysis of the impacts of the EIS provisions and alternatives.

UT Both emc0337GB

743. The Duchesne County general plan states that:

"Resource-use and management decisions byfederal land management and regulatory agencies should support 

state-sponsored initiatives or programs designed to stabilize wildlife populations that may be experiencing a scientifically 

proven decline in numbers. "

Note from the above paragraph that the goal is to stabilize sage-grouse populations rather than return the population to a 

level that may have existing before our county was homesteaded; beginning in 1905. Utah Division of Wildlife Resource lek 

counts in 1978 revealed 748 male sage grouse and a total estimated spring population of 2,992 adult birds in the Uintah Basin

resource area. UDWR counts in 2005 found 788 male sage grouse and an estimated total spring population of 3,158 adult 

birds in the resource area. The science shows that sage grouse populations are fairly stable and perhaps even growing in our

region; thanks to the efforts of the local sage-grouse working group and private/public land managers. The success of such 

local efforts must be reflected in the RMP amendments and the local sage grouse working groups must be consulted with.

UT Both emc0242GB

744. BLM and Forest lands should not be expected to provide all needed sage grouse habitat to meet such benchmarks. Private, 

state and tribal lands contribute a good share of sage grouse habitat now and will continue to do so in the future. BLM should 

coordinate with state wildlife agencies to monitor the progress of sage grouse and establish population benchmarks for each

state or region sufficient to prevent ESA listing.

UT Both emc0242GB

745. Arimo Corporation and C Bar Cattle Co. u'ould like to cooperate with federal and state agencies on habitat projects for sage 

grouse. W-e believe that livestock grazing improves sage grouse habitat and are in supporl of continued rnanaged iivestock 

grazing in the west.

UT Both fxc0007GB

746. Blue Mountain in north eastern Utah has a good sage grouse population but it could be increased with very little effort and 

hopefully not too much expense.

UT Both emc0296GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-585

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

The habitat on Blue Mt. can be improved by simply incorporating things that have been successfully implemented all over the 

country.

747. BLM IM 2012-043 delineates greater sage-grouse areas as Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) areas and Preliminary General 

Habitat areas, and provides different management criteria for each. There appears to have been no public input into these 

designations. BLM states that PPH "comprises areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to 

maintaining sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse populations." It saxs the areas were "identified by the BLM in coordination with 

respective state wildlife agencies." We submit that the Administrative Procedures Act (AP A) requires that public notice and 

opportunity for public comment should be provided before special protection areas can be designated on federal lands. We 

further submit that the designation process would greatly benefit from public input. PPH, as designated by BLM, should be 

provided to the public for comment as part of this NO I.

UT Both rmc0026RM

748. Be aware that under Parker Mountain Resource Management (PARM) programming and practices-populations of grouse have 

consistently increased, chick survival rates have topped other national inventories; active Lek sites have increased; predation 

has been reduced and habitat for sage grouse has consistently been improved with mechanical, chemical and livestock driven 

management practices.

UT Both rmc0066GB

749. The scoplng statement identifies 438,SOOacres on Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) as potential sage grouse 

habitat, which is about 77% of the tota l acreage of FS lands (572,000) within the boundary of the T8NG. It seems that there 

is an abundance of habitat for the bird· other factors must be contributing to the bird's acknowledged dedine.

WY Both rmc0045RM

750. In the scoping statement background section, Bureau of Land Management is represented to have 30 million acres of occupied 

sage grouse habitat, with another 10 million acres as potentiall~ suitable. Again, there seems to be no shortage of suitable 

habitat for the sage grouse.

WY Both rmc0045RM

751. Likely factors in the sage glouse population decline also include West Nile virus. Predators, aerial predator perches in the form

of power/transmission lines, fire· whether controlled or wildfire, invasive species such as cheatgrass, and the sage grouse's

unfortunately slow reaction to escape when threatened.

WY Both rmc0045RM

752. Conservation effortl would be much more productive if directed towards efforts to mitigate disease, reduce burning In sage 

grouse habitat, urefully site new power/transmission lines, retrofit existing power/transmission lines in sage-grouse sensitive 

areas with antiperch devices, control of invasive species such as cheatgrass, reduce the fragmentation effects of future oil and 

gas activities, and control of predators.

WY Both rmc0045RM

753. The scoping statement background section states that other sagebrush dependent species are also in trouble. There is no 

evidence that this statement is true it presupposes that the habitat is the sole source of the sage grouse’s decline and that

other sage brush dependent species would be affected the same as the sage grouse. Factors unique to the sage grouse such as 

disease and predators likely would not affect olher species such as sage sparrow and sage thrasher 10 the same extent as the 

sage grouse.

WY Both rmc0045RM

754. Irrigation from reservoirs and dirt work systems that are in place on Federal lands should be allowed to continue. Sage grouse 

still need the grassy areas for food and shelter. The irrigation of the sparse grasslands ecosystems in the landscape will slow 

WY Both emc0050RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-586 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

down the encroachment of the prairie dog and allow forage for more than one species survival in the area.

755. Sage grouse carry many parasites and lice. Would it be possible to have "dusting" areas for the sage grouse to use? Have 

experiments been done that prove what and how they would use these facilities? Is it also possible that before courting and 

nesting a feed could be scattered which would contain elements to remove some parasites from the sage grouse. In other 

words feed them something that would help make them healthier? Have any experiments been done with this in mind? If any 

of these would help protect the bird from succumbing to health concerns shouldn’t it be attempted at least on a small scale 

within active habitat sites? A very light scatter of this type of pellet would not be harmful to any other wildlife or livestock in 

the area.

WY Both emc0050RM

756. Translocation of sage grouse into areas with good habitat and out of areas of mineral or large human development is a good 

idea. Yes, land areas can be maintained for good habitat but there are some instances where development has already 

fragmented the landscape and the renewal of the whole landscape looks dim. Sage grouse should be moved from areas where 

humans and industry are prevalent and placed in areas where humans are not as invasive. There are private landowners that 

would accept the sage grouse in addition to placing the bird on federally managed land. If the grouse were treated for lice and 

parasites before their release then a healthier bird would be there for repopulation.

WY Both emc0050RM

757. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach

Wyoming’s strategy emphasizes stronger protections within core areas, with less stringent protections and greater 

management flexibility in non-core areas as an incentive for development to leave core areas intact. While this strategy 

acknowledges that non-core area grouse populations will likely decline due to loss and fragmentation of habitat, monitoring 

must take place to prevent the extirpation of populations and maintain connectivity among subpopulations. In non-core areas, 

lek persistence must be maintained over the long term, with sufficient proportions of sage-grouse populations remaining to 

maintain connectivity and movements.

WY Both emc0089RM

758. BLM is well aware of the dire status of sage grouse in the West and of the extensive devastating impacts to sage grouse habitat 

and populations caused by BLM permitting in the Powder River Basin. The most recent study by the University of Montana for 

the Buffalo Field Office on the population viability of sage grouse in the Powder River Basin is a strong evidence of how

quickly uncontrolled permitting and development of federal minerals can result in the destruction and decline of critical sage 

grouse habitat and the species. BLM must heed the results of that study and implement additional actions and steps to 

conserve, protect and restore sagebrush habitat now.

WY BLM emc0129RM

759. BLM should expand core area boundaries and include larger buffers between sage grouse habitat and surface activity to 

protect sage grouse nesting and winter habitat. BLM policies to protect sage grouse habitat will be more successful if sage 

grouse core areas are expanded and buffered and if BLM implements policies that also protect sage grouse winter

habitat. In support of the need to expand core area boundaries and protect sage grouse habitat see the attached declaration 

of former BLM wildlife biologist Larry Gerard. The experience and knowledge of Mr. Gerard and other BLM biologists should 

not be ignored. BLM must stop bowing to industry and political pressure, as occurred in the Powder River Basin, and step up 

to the plate to take the obvious and necessary actions to stop permitting mineral development in sage brush habitat.

WY Both emc0129RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-587

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

760. Concerns: The overarching concern for the Greater Sage Grouse in the Upper Snake River Basin Conservation Area is loss 

of Sage Grouse habitat. This issue is compounded because: (1) over half of the Sage Grouse occur outside of the core area 

recognized by the state; (2) one of the main leks is located on the Jackson Hole Airport, and management action to reduce 

potential bird-aircraft interaction will likely result in elimination of significant breeding, nesting, broodrearing and winter 

habitat in the core area; and (3) population isolation makes landscape connectivity a critical factor to maintain and/or restore.

WY USFS emc0144RM

761. Because US Forest Service (USFS) management actions will likely affect the primary issues and threats - whether or not in a 

core area - we would like these concerns reflected in the Sage Grouse planning amendment. Please see three attached letters 

previously submitted to the BTNF regarding the Clark’s Draw Prescribed Burn; winter use in the Breakneck Flats area; and the 

PXP proposal. Potential issues/threats affecting sage-grouse in the USRBCA were listed in the 2008 Conservation Plan, but the 

following points are emphasized for the BTNF:

WY USFS emc0144RM

762. 1) Manage vegetative communities to provide for nesting and early brood rearing, late brood rearing and winter habitat. 

Conduct landscape-scale analysis when evaluating sagebrush habitat for management needs and potential treatments.

WY USFS emc0144RM

763. 2) Evaluate the ramifications of ongoing genetics/connectivity studies and the need for additional population viability analysis, 

since these populations appear to be isolated with little genetic interchange.

WY USFS emc0144RM

764. 3) Evaluate and consider the need to maintain connectivity between these small populations and regional populations and core 

habitat:

- Maintain movement corridors between the Upper Green River core population and the Gros Ventre River Valley by 

maintaining connectivity of sagebrush habitats between the upper Gros Ventre and Union Pass;

- Maintain Bacon Ridge/Breakneck Flats sage-grouse winter use areas;

- Maintain connectivity of sagebrush habitats between the Upper Green River Core population and the Hoback Basin; and

- Maintain connectivity of sagebrush habitats along the Wyoming- Idaho State line near Crow, Stump, and Spring Creeks. 

Coordinate habitat work with the Forest Service and Idaho Fish and Game Dept. to maintain/improve connectivity between 

occupied habitat in Star Valley and Southeast Idaho.

WY USFS emc0144RM

765. Situation: According to the range-wide Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly 

et al., 2004), sage-grouse have declined across their range during the past 50 years, as has the quality and distribution of the 

bird’s requisite sagebrush-steppe habitat.

WY USFS emc0144RM

766. Sage-grouse are found in sagebrush/grassland habitats of the mountain valleys of the Upper Snake River drainage. All of the 

known strutting grounds or leks associated with these populations in Wyoming are on public lands administered by the 

National Park Service (NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or US Forest Service (USFS). Sagebrush habitat is essential 

for sage-grouse survival. Suitable habitat consists of plant communities dominated by sagebrush and a diverse native grass and 

forb (flowering broadleaf plants) understory. The composition of shrubs, grasses and forbs varies with the subspecies of 

sagebrush, the condition of the habitat at a location, and the site’s potential. Seasonal habitats must occur in a patchwork or 

mosaic across the landscape. Both quantity and quality of the sagebrush environment determines suitability and productivity of 

sage-grouse. The limited habitat associated with these mountain valleys and the topography which separates areas of suitable 

habitat results in small populations that are thought to be relatively isolated. Because of these factors these populations are 

considered to be at some risk of extirpation.

WY USFS emc0144RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-588 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

767. Providing for all habitat needs at the landscape scale required by sage-grouse may be the most challenging element of managing 

the landscape in the context of other existing land uses. There is also a need to identify and manage habitat structure and cover

components at a finer scale of individual plant species. These challenges are greatest in breeding (pre-nesting, nesting and early 

brood-rearing) habitats. The Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit conducted a study of the populations of 

sage-grouse in Jackson Hole and the Gros Ventre drainage from 2000-2003, which was funded by the WGFD, NPS, and USFS 

(Holloran and Anderson, 2004). Population parameters, seasonal habitat use, and movements were evaluated in this study. 

The working group provided partial funding to the US Geological Survey for a vegetation assessment and analysis of seasonal 

sage-grouse distribution related to vegetation and to Craighead Beringia South for a follow-up sage-grouse study in Jackson 

Hole and the Gros Ventre River Valley to examine sage-grouse population parameters, habitat selection, seasonal 

movements, and interactions with raven populations. That study by Bedrosian et al. (2010) is available from the working group

and both research projects can be found on the Wyoming Game Fish Department website at 

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000382.aspx#

WY USFS emc0144RM

768. Based on these research projects, available winter habitat was thought to be a critical and possibly limiting habitat component 

for these two small sage-grouse populations (Chong et al. 2011). Some portions of the seasonal habitats for the Jackson Hole 

and Gros Ventre populations are located on Forest Service lands and the latter population is almost entirely dependent on 

Forest Service lands.

WY USFS emc0144RM

769. In addition there are 2 small populations south of Jackson. One population is located along the Idaho-Wyoming border in Star 

Valley. The 2 known leks for this apparently isolated population are found on private land in Idaho but the Spring Creek 

drainage on the Greys River Ranger District of the Bridge r Teton National Forest (BTNF) provides important winter and 

likely nesting and brood rearing habitat. The second small breeding population is found in the Hoback Basin with one know lek

(Clark Draw) on the Big Piney Ranger District of the BTNF. This lek is unique in that it occupies habitat in a high mountain 

valley and birds generally move out of the valley to the south and occupy winter habitat on BLM land in a core area near 

Marbleton, WY. One hen was marked with a satellite GPS transmitter and followed for 2 breeding seasons and one male was 

marked with a transmitter and followed for one summer before it was predated.

WY USFS em0144RM

770. Like the National Technical Team report, which recommends restrictions on land uses in sage-grouse priority habitat, the 

state of Wyoming – -to the extent the state has regulatory authority - applies special restrictions to activities in core habitat 

(areas). The core areas plan represented a fundamental change in protecting sage grouse compared to the BLM’s "adaptive 

management" approach. The BLM approach had been to approve activities first, promising to modify stipulations after impacts 

to wildlife species were measured. Wyoming's core areas policy requires that developers of new activities must first 

demonstrate that sage grouse populations will not be negatively impacted.

While the policy does not expand the state's current authority over any land-use activities, it has been recognized by federal 

regulators as a key strategy in protecting sage grouse. On November 10, 2010, the FWS confirmed that "this long-term, 

science-based vision for the conservation of greater sage-grouse has set the stage for similar conservation efforts across the 

species range," and that "the Core Population Area Strategy for the greater sage-grouse provides an excellent model for 

meaningful conservation of sage-grouse is fully supported and implemented". Several western states have adopted or are 

considering adopting the Wyoming Core Area Strategy, thus making the concept consistent across the species range. In 2010, 

WY Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-589

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the Wyoming BLM aligned its own conservation strategies with the core areas plan (BLM Memo WY-2010-012).

771. Recreation, pesticides, parasites and disease are considered to be low priority factors at this time, but may become more 

important in the future as we come to understand the ecology of these small populations.

WY USFS emc0144RM

772. Wyoming is the last remaining stronghold for the greater sage grouse, and clearly the Wyoming population, having become 

the core of the rangewide sage grouse population, offers the last best hope of preventing sage grouse extinction. GIS analysis 

shows that Wyoming has the largest expanse of least fragmented sagebrush habitat remaining in North America (Knick et al. 

2003). According to Rowland et al. (2006:v), “Concomitant with the amount of sagebrush habitat, the Wyoming Basins area 

harbors some of the largest extant populations of sagebrush-obligate species, such as greater sagegrouse and pronghorn. 

Future persistence of these sagebrush-obligate species therefore is closely linked to effective management of sagebrush 

habitats in the Wyoming Basins.” These researchers mapped sagebrush habitats versus fragmentation in relation to sage 

grouse in the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion (see p. 5-31), and found that the Red Desert is one of the remaining major hotspots. 

But sage grouse populations in the state have been on a longterm downward trend, still cycling upward and downward but 

both the peaks and the troughs in population are steadily being reduced over the past 50 years.

WY Both emc0343GB

773. Powder River Basin The sage grouse population in the Powder River Basin, the largest remaining occupied area in the 

Northern Plains ecosystem, is in especially dire straits. Even though the RMP amendments are not currently slated to apply 

here due to the sage grouse amendment already underway, this is an area that deserves extra attention. The Powder River 

Basin constitutes a significant portion of the range of the sage grouse, and its extirpation here would have important 

consequences for the persistence of the grouse on the High Plains as a whole. According to Naugle et al (2006:5), “An analysis 

of the current distribution and pace of development shows that the PRB is likely to be drilled at 32.4 ha (80 ac) spacing in less 

than 20 years (D. E. Naugle, unpublished data), leaving sage grouse no place else to go.” Coalbed methane development (and, 

to a lesser extent, conventional oil and gas development) is driving the present population crash. According to Walker et al.

(2007:2644), in the Powder River Basin, “Of leks active in 1997 or later, only 38% of 26 leks in CBNG [coalbed methane] fields 

remained active by 2004–2005, compared to 84% of 250 leks outside CBNG fields.” This study found an 82% decline in sage 

grouse lek counts between 2001 and 2005, while Powder River Basin leks unaffected by development declined by only 12% 

over the same period. As of this study, 28,000 wells had been drilled on the Wyoming side of the Basin, but 50,000 additional

wells had been authorized by the BLM. Id.

WY Both emc0343GB

774. 23) Habitat management I:,TUidclines for arid ~ites often exceed the ecological potential 01' Wyoming big sagebrush site!';, 

even those sites that support healthy populations or sage grouse.

WY BLM fxc0011gb

775. The unpredictability of WNv outbreaks rangewide in the sage grouse population provides a stochastic mortality factor that 

will vary in magnitude, meaning that any population that becomes isolated or depleted is a candidate for extirpation due to 

WNv. Naugle et al. (2004) observed, “In small, fragmented populations, stochastic events such as disease exacerbate risk of 

extinction due to the combined effect of demographic stochasticity, deterministic stressors, and inbreeding depression. 

Moreover, because small or isolated populations generally show reduced genetic variation, they are less likely to contain 

individuals resistant to emerging infectious disease.” (Internal citations omitted.) This study also showed no evidence that

sage grouse could develop immunity to WNv and survive once infected. A subsequent study (Walker 2008) showed that the 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-590 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

development of immunity in sage grouse populations was unlikely given current demographic parameters and labeled the 

disease “a persistent new source of mortality” for sage grouse in the Powder River Basin. Moreover, Without monitoring 

radio-marked individuals, impacts of WNv mortality, even severe outbreaks, may go undetected and lead to the 

misperception among managers and policy-makers that WNv is no longer an issue for greater sage-grouse in the Powder 

River Basin. Moreover, in the absence of radio-marked birds, population declines due to severe or persistent WNv mortality 

may be incorrectly attributed to other potential stressors (e.g., weather, range management) and lead to inappropriate policy

and management decisions.

776. (Walker 2008:181). At present, radio-marking of sage grouse is not widespread in the Powder River Basin, and even the 

current level of radio-marking bird may not continue as current studies are reaching (or have reached) their conclusions. 

Given the cyclical nature of sage grouse population trends, West Nile presents the archetypal example of a stochastic event 

that could spell extirpation for fragmented populations: “The impact of WNv during a string of low-survival or 

low-productivity years may be severe” (Walker 2008:182). With this in mind, the Sage Grouse Plan Amendments should 

include strong measures to prevent an increase in Culex habitat in and near Core Areas. Walker et al. (2010) recommended 

reducing man-man water sources as a means of reducing the threat of West Nile virus. Specifically, we recommend that 

surface disposal of produced water from coalbed methane or other oil and gas operations should be prohibited within 20 

miles of designated Priority Habitats, and CBM-related water storage reservoirs need to be drained and breached to avoid 

creating habitat for the Culex mosquito, which carries West Nile virus. This is eminently feasible, as there are several other 

disposal options. First, the water could be injected underground, into aquifers of equal or lower quality to protect 

groundwater supplies and comply with state laws. Second, the water could be treated and piped to municipal water facilities, 

without ever collecting on the surface. For low-volume water producing wells, holding all water in condensate tanks and 

trucking it to municipal treatment facilities may be an option. These are measures which do not appear to have been 

considered in the Wyoming sage grouse strategy to date, yet are crucially important because a population of grouse that is 

able to persist due to limitations on direct habitat destruction does not contribute to the overall survival of the species if it is 

then wiped out by an outbreak of West Nile virus.

WY Both emc0343GB

777. Climate is an important factor affecting sage grouse populations (South-Central Local Working Group 2007:15). Climate 

change scenarios in the sagebrush ecosystem predict that the largest area of sagebrush that will persist in the future is in 

southern and southwest Wyoming, between the northern and central Rocky Mountains (Neilson et al. 2005) According to 

Rowland et al. (2006:vi), this is the very area of greatest ecological diversity and high risk for future habitat degradation in the 

Wyoming Basins Ecoregion: “Species richness of sagebrush-associated vertebrates of concern was greatest in southwestern 

Wyoming, where as many as 36 of the 40 vertebrate species of concern cooccur. Moreover, some of the areas identified as 

most affected by anthropogenic disturbance, as estimated by our human footprint model, are also those that have the greatest 

species richness. Human activities occurring in southwestern Wyoming are expected to have disproportionately and 

substantially greater effects on a larger number of species of concern compared to other portions of the WBEA area.”

WY Both emc0343GB

778. Populations of sage grouse that are closer geographically tend to be closer genetically, indicating that individuals rarely move 

between non-neighboring populations (Oyler- McCance et al. 2005). Knick and Hanser (2010) suggested that a distance of 

11.2 miles or closer between leks promotes connectivity. The new Sage Grouse Plan Amendments should include provisions 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-591

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

for designating Connectivity Areas as Priority Habitats in addition to Core Areas, particularly in parts of the range where Core 

or other Priority Habitats are potentially isolated from each other. The State of Wyoming has begun to address this need in 

the Powder River Basin under its Core Area plan, and it would be wise for the BLM to incorporate this feature into its plans 

throughout the sage grouse range. Under IM 2012-039, the BLM directs field offices to utilize a Crucial Habitat Assessment 

Tool (CHAT) or other available information sources to identify wildlife corridors and inform habitat management decisions. 

For the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion, the Heart of the West Conservation Plan (available online at 

http://www.voiceforthewild.org/Heart_of_the_West/HeartoftheWestPlan.pdf), constructed with sage grouse as a focal 

species, identifies some potential connectivity areas. See Attachment 6. We recommend that BLM consider additional 

connectivity zones identified under this plan, and designated corridors in Utah in Colorado based on the Core and Corridor 

recommendations of this plan. We incorporate the Heart of the West Plan into these comments by reference and ask the 

BLM to consider and respond to this plan as an integral part of these scoping comments.

779. Unless the conservation policy of the agencies is to conserve all sagebrush habitats in occupied sagegrouse habitat until 

sufficient studies are conducted to allow spatial definition of seasonal habitats for the sage-grouse populations, large 

irreversible habitat losses are likely to occur, and populations will decline further. The Core Model does just the opposite in 

sacrificing habitats. So relying on the core concept allows habitats to be lost without all the crucial habitats for a landscape 

species ever being determined. This is the opposite of the precautionary principle. It appears designed to favor the Oil and Gas 

industry and others who seek to aggressively exploit public lands and want a short-sighted model that provides short-term 

cover for their continued exploitation of many areas. How many birds were collared in core areas – vs. non-core? Where 

were they trapped in the core areas? At the center, or near the margins? How could this all impact findings? What is “relatively 

high” what percent of the population is this? Will this be sufficient to keep even the more continuous Wyoming populations 

afloat? We are concerned that the paper’s generalizations will be applied to other parts of sage-grouse range that do not have 

broad, relatively flat interconnected expanses of sagebrush habitat. The [Fedy] paper states that “understanding 

interseasonal movements among all life stages is necessary to spatially define a population”. Yet, the Core Model miraculously 

defines Core populations. Much of the text contradicts the conclusion in the last part of the Abstract. It also states that 

understanding how far grouse move between seasons is required to effectively manage and conserve them. Average nesting 

to summer distance was 8.1 km. Average summer to winter distance was 17.3 km. 383 birds had nests within the core, and 72 

of these used habitat outside the core in seasonal movements. For winter, only 65% of locations occurred within the 75% 

core area. Average number of winter locations within the 100% core area was only 78%. So even in the relatively continuous 

interconnected sagebrush habitats blocks in Wyoming, sage-grouse used a considerable area outside the 100% core area. 

What if this analysis was applied to grouse in fragmented habitats, such as those in Air Force and IDFG studies in the Jarbidge? 

What would the distances be then?

WY Both emc0411GB

780. There was substantial movement between critical life stages. The Wyoming study also found substantial variation in 

interseasonal movement distances among study sites and among individuals, and within study sites across all life stages. 

Example: Power River Basin. Birds moved: Nesting to summer – 8 km. Summer-winter – 11.3 km. Nest to winter – 18 km. 

“Thus results from one area may not necessarily apply to others and may be related to levels of fragmentation and overall 

habitat availability”. Also, “movement distances may be affected by annual variation in moisture availability”. Yet the Idaho

WY Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-592 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.A

Comments Related to Greater Sage-Grouse in General

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

White Paper (Makeal and Majors) used a Model to model these other habitats (and was planning on incorporating more 

models in the future). The paper cites an eastern Idaho Klebenow and Gray 1968 study that found grouse moving 8-24 km. 

to summer ranges. It states that movements may also be influenced by tradition – with birds bypassing what appears to be 

suitable habitat. Sage-grouse fidelity to winter areas has also been demonstrated (citing Berry and Eng 1985, Schroeder et al. 

1999). This again shows the need for site-specific data, and protecting all habitats until that is obtained. It highlights the need 

for detailed studies of all populations use of seasonal habitats before any sagebrush habitat is relegated to a “general”, 

“moderate” or other habitat sacrifice category or non suitable category. “Based on our distance measurements, a population 

may require entire landscapes to encompass the seasonal habitats required by the population”. So it is hard to see how this 

supports the Core Model unless the core is the entire landscape. For Wyoming, the 90th percentile involves 19-km 

movements from nest to late summer and ... an additional 36 km. from late summer to winter locations”. The report 

continues: “the data included in these analyses are from sage-grouse in the core of the species’ range, including relatively 

unfragmented habitat. The extent required by an individual to meet annual resource requirements in more fragmented 

landscapes may be considerably larger (Hagen et al. 2001)”. It notes that greater movement distances may have a negative 

impact on juvenile birds. Landscape configuration, age, and gender can influence movement distances – and juveniles may move 

further. The majority of this study’s birds were adult females. The report found remarkable variation in the extent of 

movement within and among sites in yoming ... In some populations there was reasonable overlap between core and required 

habitats, but in others there was not. So it appears that relying on a Core Concept would also end up sacrificing a number of 

the core populations if BLM continues with the strongly lek-based Wyoming model in Wyoming or anywhere else. The study 

suggested seasonally explicit habitat selection models combined with site –specific information. We believe that site-specific 

data, not more models and armchair biology, are needed.
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-593

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. Having participated in many Local Working Groups, I have concerns with definitions & buffer zone issues. First, the definition of 

an ACTIVE lek needs to be reasonable and documented as a place of recent actual breeding, not just where two males were 

seen strutting once as was explained to me. When looking at possible buffer zones, the .6 mile buffer is more than sufficient and 

should be measured from the center of an ACTIVE lek.

All Both rmc0025GB

2. Recommendation #5 - We recommend that all fences within three (3) miles of any active or recently-active Greater 

Sage-Grouse lek be removed or fitted with appropriate visibility markers to reduce fence collisions. We also recommend that 

all fences around small «320 acres) pastures be fitted with visibility markers.

All Both emc0074GB

3. Trends in sage grouse populations are achieved through lek counts that compare yearly male populations with previous years. 

Utah counted over 5,700 male sage grouse on 285 leks in 2005 and 2007 and this increase from less than 1,000 shows that the 

population is increasing due to management efforts.

All Both rmc0001GB

4. a) Determine a consistent definition of what constitutes an occupied lek All Both rmc0004GB

5. b) Buffer distance flexibility; 1 mile might or might not be necessary some studies suggest .6 miles. Consider cliffs and elevation 

differences. Established barriers should be considered.

c) Any plan must establish consistency for the beginning measuring points for buffers. Buffer polygons should be created from 

center of the lek area. Observation data shall be the priority for setting buffers, timing and seasonal restrictions. If no 

observations data is available preclude that type of determination; any data used must be scientifically supportable under the 

elements of the Federal Data Quality Act.

All Both rmc0004GB

6. Timing flexibility is needed; fixed dates are not always necessary or effective; time of day set at 2 hours before sunrise to 2 hours 

after sunset again may not be necessary. Again the flexibility of these standards shall be based on monitoring and observation

All Both rmc0004GB

7. The birds have existed with grazing since day one, they adapt. A lek, used year after year near Judith Landing MT is in the 

center of a wide gravel road. I'd say the birds are adaptable.

All Both cfc0012GB

8. One land-use restriction currently in place is a two mile non-disturbance buffer around known leks. If you look at the sage 

grouse population density map distributed by the BLM and USFS it becomes apparent that two mile buffers around leks may 

restrict many mining and mineral exploration activities.

All Both emc171GB

9. When working with the SWARM Working Group a retired DWR employee was hired to look for leks and grouse one summer. 

He located many unknown leks. We encourage more resources devoted to locating and mapping sage-grouse. There are 

more birds out there than we know and it is less expensive to locate them than create habitat for them. It will require many 

methods to keep them from being listed.

All Both cfc0040GB

10. Livestock Grazing- Disturbance- 4 miles radius of a lek means 14 square miles of land or more. That is way too much to expect 

anyone to give up use on. 2 miles seems to be fairly standard and is still a large area.

All Both cfc0025RM

11. The EIS and alternatives must use the most recent science regarding the reclamation of disturbed leks and the ability of the 

species to use and reoccupy those areas.

All Both emc0310GB

12. The EIS and alternatives must use the most recent science regarding the reclamation of disturbed leks PU and the ability of the 

species to use and reoccupy those areas.

All Both emc0310GB

13. The EIS should provide the public with comprehensive maps of known sage-grouse leks and nesting areas, along with estimated All Both emc0210GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-594 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

population densities. The public needs to know the locations where any proposed actions will take effect. This EIS is somewhat 

different in that there is not a specific project site or project corridor that serves as the focus of the EIS.

14. The characteristics of a lek need to be definitively analyzed and established. Buffer zones. Where necessary and appropriate, to 

protect leks should be imposed only when research and local land managers deem them to be essential for greater sage-grouse 

habitat. The size of a buffer zone must be determined on a case-by-case basis and should account for variances in 

topography,current utilization, vegetation and other factors. The perimeter should be defined by an irregular polygon which 

reflects conditions. Rather than an arbitrary diameter dictated by policy. Observation data should be used to determine the 

maximum lek buffer perimeter

All Both emc0396GB

15. Forage and cover are needed and larger buffer zones around leks and breeding grounds, at least 3 miles, should be the policy. All Both emc0012RM

16. Because most nest sites are within two miles of a lek (Call and Maser 1986) it would be extremely beneficial to fence off an area 

around a lek (1.5 to 2 miles) to protect the sagebrush preferred for nesting (Carr 1968, Gill 1965, Wallestad and Schladweiler 

1974). Not all leks need to be fenced due to their location or land uses in the immediate proximity that have little or no impact. 

The cost of fencing would be much less than the millions that will be spent implementing the proposed strategy and the billions 

of dollars lost annually in the economy. Indeed, fenced leks would serve to repopulate other areas nearby and within

migration routes.

All Both emc0139GB

17. Fencing leks to optimize vegetation cover for nesting is a viable solution. All Both emc0139GB

18. Radius of impacts for sage grouse leks should only apply to areas within the defined radius that ~ sage grouse habitat, and not 

to all areas because it is within the circle.

All Both emc0142GB

19. Address the effects of livestock grazing on sagegrouse nesting areas. (leks) All Both emc0153GB

20. Only 6% of safe grouse habitat remains. At one time 745 leks were noted. Now there are only about 400 active leks. The 

Sheldon area has run a special, permit-controlled hunt for the last 5- 10 years. Despite this management, the number have not 

increased there

All Both emc0170GB

21. The technical team report (see Page 21) seems to ignore valid existing rights by recommending that, even in leased energy 

development areas, that surface disturbances be limited to one per section; not to exceed 3% of the area or less. This 

recommendation is unrealistic as is the recommendation for a 4-mile radius buffer around leks.

All Both emc0242GB

22. The success of lek and nesting locations near existing - oil and gas development should be analyzed in the RMP amendments. All Both emc0242GB

23. Sage grouse lek buffers, if any, should be measured from the center of a lek rather than a boundary; which is difficult to 

determine.

All Both emc0242GB

24. Measures to limit perching by avian predators should not be required outside of a 0.6 mile distance from the center of a lek. All Both emc0242GB

25. BLM's IM fence proposals appear to be reasonable and should be pursued including evaluating the need for proposed fences and 

appropriately marking fences that occur in proximity to known leks.

All Both emc0400GB

26. I believe that there are several factors involved in the decrease of their population. Industry such as oil and gas drilling and wind 

generators that are located in their habitat areas have a great influence on the nesting and strutting leks.

All Both cfc0014RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-595

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

27. Sage grouse leks benefit from livestock disturbance. If economic and political factors force the ranch to sell out to absentee 

landowners, the lek could be lost.

All Both emc0013RM

28. The RMP should include plans for a study of how lek location correlates to roads. All Both emc0013RM

29. In addition to oil and gas development, wind potential in the Eastern Region is very high. We believe development of wind 

energy can be compatible with wildlife if wind development occurs outside of sensitive areas. Because greater sage-grouse avoid 

tall structures, special care should be taken to develop wind energy outside of identified core areas and all structures should be 

placed at least five miles from the nearest lek if the population is non-migratory and up to 12.5 miles if the population is 

migratory (USFWS 2004).

All Both emc0034RM

30. I have noticed a very strong bias of the identified Lek sites being in close proximity to roads. In fact Lek site maps closely 

resembles a primary and secondary road maps, especially the SG population maps of Nevada, for which I am most familiar with. 

I would like to have the EIS study develop statistics regarding the percentage of identified Lek sites within 1000 feet of a drivable

road. Please also provide the area of public lands that are potential grouse habitat that exist further than 1000 feet from a road 

versus the amount of habitat within 1000 feet of a road. Please provide the amount of time survey personnel spent surveying 

within a 1000 feet from a road versus outside a 1000 feet from a road. Please prove that your estimated sage grouse

populations are not biased to a low population number as a result of most of your population count surveys being strongly 

biased to areas near drivable roads. At a minimum, there should be a factor to adjust population counts due to poor survey 

techniques that are strongly biased to observations along existing roads. After adjustment for biased survey techniques, can a

potentially threatened species conclusion still be made? I doubt it.

All Both emc0260GB

31. The current 3-mile area of influence around a LEK site is obscenely large and not supported by any data. Studies of protective 

areas, SOD feet, 1,000 feet, one-mile and three miles from a Lek should be undertaken before restrictive rules are established. 

The three mile area around a Lek site is arbitrary and capricious, much more data support showing is required to have any

restrictive area around a lek site.

All Both emc0260GB

32. Please comment on why identified SG Lek sites are near roads. Please provide specific observed data on why limiting use and 

access on existing roads would increase SG populations.

All Both emc0260GB

33. When considering the active or inactive status of a lek, either status does not give grounds for dismissal when considering the 

amount of habitat needed for Greater Sage Grouse preservation

All Both emc0074RM

34. Active and inactive leks need to be mapped, and habitat designated to both, therefore representing a more real picture of 

habitat preservation needing to take place

All Both emc0074RM

35. With regards to anthropogenic disturbances and their distance relationship to lek sites, it is the BLM’s responsibility to allow no 

further disturbances to take place within a 5.5 mile radius of lek sites.

All BLM emc0074RM

36. When considering disturbance density of oil and gas development, with development including but not limited to drilling, well

creation, road creation and or usage, and maintenance, the BLM should allow no more than five drill sites within a 5.5 mile radius

of each lek site. In this notation and further notations, I am considering drill sites to include sites that have a production value 

as well as those which do not. In this notation as well as further notations, I am considering disturbance density to include 

already existing oil and gas development as well as potential oil and gas development. Therefore, preexisting and potential oil 

All BLM emc0074RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-596 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and or gas sites will come to a cumulative total of five, not five of one and not five of another.

37. When considering the necessity for habitat preservation, all general habitat sites will be designated medium priority sites, with 

a mandatory evaluation of their protection from oil and gas development, and road development, and other leasing 

development. It will be mandatory for the BLM to act upon new information provided regarding lek locations, regardless of their 

activity status, and to install protective measures in the middle of the finalized land usage plan. These measures will follow the 

regulations of all high priority, priority and general habitats, as well as mandatory exemptions from oil and gas development, 

road and other leasing developments as other Greater Sage Grouse habitats have undergone.

All Both emc0074RM

38. API believes that the continued emphasis on the lek count as the primary census methodology presents the importance of 

consistency in data gathering efforts to an accurate understanding of sage grouse population trends and the effectiveness of 

BLM’s sage grouse conservation efforts. The fact that methodologies are not standardized across states, that leks are 

non-randomly sampled, and underlying assumptions are often incorrect, has been pointed out by numerous authors. The 

continued reliance on lek counts has led to a situation where in a number of cases inferences drawn from the data are neither 

repeatable nor reliable. Statistically robust, alternative methods for estimating sage grouse population number and trends have 

been identified and described in the reviewed literature but are underutilized. Agencies need improved methodologies in

order to discern the status of individual species that are nominated for listing, and to measure the efficacy of any conservation 

actions that they undertake. 

The development of the National Strategy is an opportunity for the BLM to work with state wildlife agencies to facilitate 

implementation of methods to improve the accuracy and reliability of estimates of sage grouse populations on public lands (i.e. 

sentinel lek counts, stratified random sampling, or dual frame sampling). Without reliable and consistently applied methods, 

measurements of population responses to adaptive management actions and quantification of long-term sage grouse population 

trends will remain questionable, and increase the possibility of dispute and legal challenge. We view this as the most significant 

conservation issue facing sage grouse today. The strategy and subsequent amendments to RMPs must recognize the limitations 

that will occur when BLM tries to assess Greater Sage-grouse response to proposed management actions should BLM continue 

to rely upon lek counts as a basis for development of new BMPs.

All BLM emc0346GB

39. Two problems may occur when an agency requires that a lek have no activity for ten years before it be considered 

"unoccupied." First, it has the potential to exacerbate a negative bias when using lek counts to estimate long term population 

trends. The problem was noted on page 7 of the WAFWA (2008) report titled, Greater sage-grouse population trends: an 

analysis of lek count databases 1965-2007. The authors reported, "One problem associated with missing values should be noted 

with this data set. Because the current sampling scheme is lek-based rather than area-based, locations are not considered a lek 

and therefore, not reported in databases, until grouse are found using them. Therefore, very few leks in the data set started with 

a zero. As a result, the initial establishment of a lek with a small number of male grouse and its concurrent increase from zero 

to a positive number of grouse is missing from these data, while long sets of zero counts often exist after a lek has become 

inactive. This could lead to negatively biased estimates of trend in male count."

All BLM emc0346GB

40. And second, conservation effort may be misallocated to the protection of leks that are effectively abandoned (where no sage All BLM emc0346GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-597

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

grouse have been present for years). Some activities may also be unnecessarily restricted.

We urge that the BLM take steps to: 1) ensure that analyses of population trends are unbiased, and 2) that the criterion for 

determining when a lek is ‘abandoned’ be based upon an analysis of biological data rather than simply 10 years of non-use (e.g. 

Lek count data could be used to determine the mean number of years that leks are inactive before becoming permanently 

abandoned.)

41. Please clarify whether lek count data used to quantify sage grouse responses to human activity will be based upon analysis of

trends from single leks (within a lek complex), or combined data simultaneously collected from all leks within a lek complex. In 

other words, distinguish between local displacement of sage grouse (to another part of the population), versus an overall 

demographic effect (i.e. reduction in the population size).

All BLM emc0346GB

42. As further evidence of the value of livestock grazing to the health of greater sage-grouse, we are prepared to provide data from 

large, private land holdings where large ungulate numbers have doubled over the last 30 years and greater sage-grouse lek 

counts have increased five-fold.

All Both emc0140RM

43. Lek Definitions and Buffers

Buffer zones should be used sparingly and only when scientific research and local land managers deem them to be beneficial for 

greater sage-grouse habitat. Buffer distances must be determined on a case-by-case basis. All buffers should be measured from 

a consistent starting point, with buffer polygons being consistently placed at the center of lek areas. Scientifically peer-reviewed 

observation data should be used to determine the proper lek perimeter measurement. Additionally, a complete definition of 

what constitutes a lek is needed. Nesting and brooding management decisions should not be based upon a “one-size-fits-all” 

formula, but should rather be left to site-specific conditions.

All Both emc0140RM

44. In the case of the Greater and Gunnison Sage-Grouse mitigation measures such as seasonal and or time of day limitations can 

avoid disturbing the lekking process. Careful attention to trail routes can avoid fragmentation of critical habitat and avoid leks. 

Trail construction techniques can be used as a framework for enticing/encouraging trail users to conform their behavior to the 

desired conditions. All of these measures should be considered prior to resorting to outright prohibitions.

All Both emc0150RM

45. Furthermore, we recommend that the planning documents also address the significant limitations associated with relying 

primarily upon lek counts as the preferred methodology to determine Greater Sage-grouse populations and the efficacy of 

subsequent conservation measures. Lek counts have been in use since 1952 and have been found to be a remarkably 

inconsistent tool when attempting to precisely estimate population sizes. Of primary concern is that the data collected are 

really non-random samples of sage grouse leks which fail to account for male Sage-grouse at unknown leks, ignoring the fact that 

males move between leks and ignores females or juveniles. Consequently, counting only males results in an unknown 

proportion of the total Sage-grouse populations. Therefore, we recommend the agencies utilize an improved approach that is 

more consistent, defensible and useful as a tool to accurately model population trends.

All Both emc0340GB

46. However, our observations have consistently shown that smaller (25-200Ha) openings created in large (>500Ha) expanses of 

mountain and Basin big sagebrush in excess of 25% canopy coverage and above 2000m in elevation are used as brood habitat by 

GSG, and (based on increased lek attendance, lek persistence, and new lek development) can increase GSG populations

All Both emc0281GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-598 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

47. Under the Recreation section (page 12) indicates that many recreation activities are "benign uses in sagebrush habitats. 

However, excessive use, such as repeated disturbance to leks for viewing that disrupts sage-grouse breeding activities can have 

significant negative effects (75 FR 13910)." However, Nevada Department of Wildlife routinely live-traps sage-grouse on the 

leks, and somehow this does not seem to be disruptive of breeding activities. We would like to see this live-trapping activity 

analyzed in the EIS.

All Both emc0239GB

48. COMMENTS ON Interim conservation Measures and Policies for Preliminary Priority Habitat, No. 2012‐043 (IM) As the 

interim policy and program guidance in the IM: These comments are consistent with and applicable to the strategic suggestions 

above for the proposed action. The IM recommends consideration of alternatives that would increase buffer distances around 

active leks and timing restrictions within existing LUPs as needed to further reduce adverse effects on Greater Sage‐Grouse and 

its habitat. We feel that agencies must apply known science in determining buffer distances around active leks and when 

establishing timing restrictions. It is our opinion that there is significant variability in the standards that have been applied in the 

past.

All Both emc0254GB

49. We are particularly concerned that BLM may choose to incorporate one or all of the conservation measures outlined in the 

Report into the RMP's via this amendment process. Recommendations of particular concern are the four mile no surface 

occupancy (NSO) buffer around leks and the 3% surface disturbance limitation for leases entirely within core sage grouse 

habitat. These restrictions are not supported by science and are much more onerous than even the most restrictive 

management strategies used across the range of the species. Applying an NSO timing stipulation restriction four miles around 

leks on leases will prevent new 011 and gas development and may ultimately result in the infringement of valid lease existing

rights (see 'Valid Existing Lease Rights' section below).

All Both emc0246GB

50. We also request that BLM clarify whether the four mile NSO buffer is from the center or the edge of the lek and whether the 

restrictions apply to historic or active leks, or both.

All BLM emc0246GB

51. We request that BLM acknowledge and incorporate recent studies regarding the impact of oil and gas activities or GSG viability 

into the EISs and SEISs. A report entitled "Thresholds of Energy Development and Greater SageGrouse Populations," by Taylor, 

Dzlalak and Clark et al. in 2010 was performed In Wyoming to show the actual impacts of energy development on GSG and was 

conducted using the most current publicly available data on lek attendance in areas with full-field development. Contrary to the 

conclusions reached in other studies, findings contained in this study clearly demonstrate that energy development and viable 

sage-grouse populations can successfully coexist when reasonable mitigation measures are utilized during exploration, 

development and producing activities. The 2011 report entitled "Oil and Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus): A Review of Threats and Mitigation Measures," by Ramey, Brown and Blackgoat is a detailed 

technical review of previous research regarding general threats of oil and gas development to sage grouse and examination of 

the reliability of various mitigation measures.

All Both emc0246GB

52. As stated In the December 2011 National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures/Planning Strategy In the Monitoring of 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats section, it is possible that lek counts are an inconsistent tool In relationship to population 

size estimates. We recommend a strategy to come up with a more consistent, defensible and use tool in order to accurately 

model population trends since lek counting has been used as the preferred method since 1952. We think it is time to further 

scrutinize lek counts as the preferred methodology and implement a more up to date scientific method.

All Both emc0246GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-599

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

53. Comments on "A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures" (produced by the Sage-grouse National 

Technical Team, December 21, 2011). The following comments pertain to specific parts of the above-referenced document. 

Page 13, "Rights of Way" section, 3rd bullet. "Power lines effectively influence (direct physical area plus estimated area of effect 

due to predator movements) at least 39% of the sage-grouse range." While this paper is cited in the Conservation Strategy, 

another paper from the same book that found no effect of power lines on sage-grouse lek counts was not cited (see Johnson et 

al., pages 407-450 in Greater Sage-grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats). The 

Conservation Strategy appears to select citations that support perceptions of negative impacts associated with power lines, yet

does not include papers that do not support this view or that acknowledge the lack of data on the subject (e.g., UWIN literature 

review).

All Both emc0275GB

54. Comments on "A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures" (produced by the Sage-grouse National 

Technical Team, December 21, 2011). The following comments pertain to specific parts of the above-referenced document. 

Page 19, second paragraph, "Abandonment may increase if leks are repeatedly disturbed by raptors perching on power lines 

near leks". Leks may not necessarily abandon due to raptor predation (regardless of the presence of a power line). The Ellis 

(1984) study cited includes an anecdotal observation, not a scientifically rigorous study addressing this topic. It should be noted 

as such and not presented as a statistically valid study. It may also be noted that there are other anecdotal observations that 

contradict the observations in this earlier paper.

All Both emc0275GB

55. As an interstate transporter of natural gas, EI Paso constructs and maintains numerous facilities 111 many states that cross land 

managed by multiple BLM Field Offices. The proposed conservation measures must, to the greatest extent poss ible, provide a 

consistent management approach across the range of the species and between BLM Field Offices. The NIT objectives identify 

the need to "Oversee the development of consis/ent regula/OIY mechanisms across the range of the greater sagegrouse ." EI 

Paso recently completed the Ruby Pipeline Project that crossed land managed by seven BLM Fie ld Offices in four states. Our 

experience was that the lack of consistency in Field Office policies across the Project had a significant impact on project 

permitting, construction schedule and costs. The conservation measures deve loped during the NEPA process should provide 

consistent definitions of lek buffer s ize, dates that identify when certain activities are allowed within identified habitats, and 

consistent levels of allowable impacts. We understand that s ite specific cons iderations may affect these parameters, but BLM 

should strive to minimize inconsistency.

All Both emc0278GB

56. 3. page 6, Goals and Objectives, paragraph 1. At the Idaho BLM Open House for EIS Scoping, Paul Makela, a wildlife biologist 

from the Idaho State Office, displayed a map with sage-grouse leks and nesting success throughout Southern Idaho and 

Northeast Nevada. Most of the lek sites in Northeast Nevada showed a 70- 100 percent nesting success. This information was 

based upon a survey contract completed in 2009. When Mr. Makela was asked, "How can this kind of success be improved 

upon?" His response was, "You can't. The most we can hope for is to maintain what we have." This leads one to think about the 

old adage, "If it isn't broke, why try and fix it."

All Both emc0289GB

57. There seems to be some conflict when a rancher uses a road that is adjacent to a lek, but agency biologists don't recognize a

conflict when they travel to these same sites several times each spring to do lek counts, at which time they stop and get out of 

their vehicles.

All Both emc0322GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-600 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

58. We are particularly concerned that BLM may incorporate into the RMPs certain conservation measures outlined in the Report, 

including a four‐mile NSO buffer around leks and 3% surface disturbance limitation for leases entirely within priority habitat. 

These restrictions are not supported by science and are much more onerous than even the most restrictive management 

strategies used across the range of the species. Applying a NSO restriction of four miles around leks will prevent new oil and gas 

development and may ultimately result in the infringement of valid existing rights (see ‘Valid Existing Lease Rights’ below).

All BLM emc0312GB

59. We request that BLM clarify whether private and state lands will be included in the density restriction calculations and whether 

the four mile NSO buffer is from the center or the edge of the lek and whether the restrictions apply to historic or active leks, 

or both.

All BLM emc0312GB

60. As stated in the December 2011 National Greater Sage‐grouse Conservation Measures/Planning Strategy in the Monitoring of 

Sage‐grouse and Sagebrush Habitats section, it is possible that lek counts are an inconsistent tool in relationship to population

size estimates. We recommend a strategy to come up with a more consistent, defensible and useable tool in order to accurately 

model population trends since lek counting has been used as the preferred method since 1952. We think it is time to further 

scrutinize lek counts as the preferred methodology and implement a more to date scientific method.

All BLM emc0312GB

61. The success of lek and nesting locations near existing oil and gas development should be analyzed in the RMP amendments. All Both emc0376GB

62. Make sure that topography is appropriately evaluated associated with leks. All Both rmc0032GB

63. Oil and gas development poses perhaps the greatest single threat to sage grouse persistence across the eastern half of its range. 

Taylor et al. (2010) found that in Montana, oil and gas development eclipsed agricultural tillage and West Nile virus as the most 

destructive factor facing sage grouse populations there. Walker et al. (2007) found that sage grouse habitat within 4 miles of a 

lek site was important to the persistence of the lek. Conversely, Walker et al. (2007) concluded that leks heavily impacted by 

oil and gas development “typically became inactive within 3-4 years.” Harju et al. (2008) found a time lag of 2-10 years 

post-development, at which point negative effects became evident. The same is true for winter habitats. Indeed, Naugle et al. 

(2006) found that a model using habitat variables and coalbed methane development provided a near perfect fit for grouse 

distribution data. In the Powder River Basin, CBM well density within a 4 km2 area provided the best fit for modeling sage 

grouse habitat use (Doherty et al. 2008). Taylor et al. (2012) found the strongest relationship between sage grouse population 

persistence and density of producing wells was at a 12.4-mile radius. In addition to the impacts from direct disturbance, oil and 

gas development is correlated with elevated predator activity, which in turn depresses reproductive success (Bui et a. 2010, 

Dzialek et al. 2011).

All Both emc0343GB

64. The area closest to a sage grouse lek is crucial to both the breeding activities and nesting success of local sage grouse 

populations. One scientist described the lek site as “the hub from which nesting occurs” (Autenreith 1985). Grouse exhibit 

strong fidelity to individual lek sites from year to year (Dunn and Braun 1986). During the spring period, male habitat use is 

concentrated within 2 km of lek site (Benson et al. 1991). A Montana study found that no male sage grouse traveled farther than 

1.8 km from a lek during the breeding season (Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974). Other researchers found that 10 of 13 hens 

nested within 1.9 miles of the lek site during the first year of their southern Idaho study, with an average distance of 1.7 miles 

from the lek site; 100% of hens nested within 2 miles of the lek site during the second year of this study, with an average distance 

from lek of 0.5 mile (Hulet et al. 1986). In Montana, Wallestad and Pyrah (1974) found that 73% of nests were built within 2 miles 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-601

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of the lek, but only one nest occurred within 0.5 mile of the lek site. Holloran (2005) found that 64% of sage grouse nested 

within 3.1 miles of a lek in western Wyoming, and Walker et al. (2007) found that sage grouse habitat within 4 miles of a lek site 

was important to the persistence of the lek. Doherty (2008) found that 97% of sage grouse nests were within 10 km (6.21 miles) 

of a lek. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found a curvilinear relationship in which 90% of nests were predicted within 10 km of a lek. 

This is significant because Dzialek et al. (2011) found that nests closer to wells were at greater risk of nest failure, likely due to 

increased predation associated with anthropomorphic disturbance, and recommended that new oil and gas well be sited at least 

1.6 km from the nearest nesting habitat.

65. According to Doherty (2008:51-52), “Impacts of energy development to sage-grouse populations are well documented 

(Naugle et al. in press) but nesting response to full development could not be thoroughly investigated here because severity of 

CBNG development to leks in the PRB (Walker et al. 2007:52) left too few birds to monitor inside gas fields. The best energy 

development predictor for birds that nested on the edge or within low levels of CBNG development increased model fit (-16.72 

units) of my AIC best habitat model (Table 4). This finding is equivocal because an independent test of this model did not 

support inclusion of distance to road to the AIC best habitat model. My inability to validate findings or capture large samples of 

sage-grouse in fully developed fields is not surprising because Holloran et al. (2007) reported high female nest site fidelity, but 

lower survival of nesting adult sage-grouse in gas fields combined with avoidance of infrastructure by yearlings resulted in a time 

lag of 3-4 years between the onset of development activities and lek loss (Holloran 2005). The time lag observed by Holloran 

(2005) in the Pinedale Anticline in southwest Wyoming matched that for leks that became inactive 3-4 years following CBNG 

development in the PRB (Walker et al. 2007).” It is therefore critical to protect not just the lek itself, but a substantial amount 

of the nesting habitat surrounding the lek, through No Surface Occupancy buffers. We recommend, based on the findings of

Holloran, NSO buffers of 2 miles around the lek with additional Timing Limitation Stipulations extending 3 miles from the lek

during the breeding and nesting season.

All Both emc0343GB

66. Nesting activities can also be impacted. In a study near Pinedale, sage grouse from disturbed leks where gas development 

occurred within 3 km of the lek site showed lower nesting rates (and hence lower reproduction), traveled farther to nest, and

selected greater shrub cover than grouse from undisturbed leks (Lyon 2000). According to this study, impacts of oil and gas 

development to sage grouse include (1) direct habitat loss from new construction, (2) increased human activity and pumping 

noise causing displacement, (3) increased legal and illegal harvest, (4) direct mortality associated with reserve pits, and (5) 

lowered water tables resulting in herbaceous vegetation loss. Pump and compressor noise from oil and gas development may 

reduce the effective range of grouse vocalizations; low-frequency noise from wind turbines could have a similar effect. A 

consortium of eminent sage grouse biologists recommended, “Energy-related facilities should be located >3.2 km from active 

leks” (Connelly et al. 2000). And Dr. Clait Braun, one of the world’s most eminent experts on sage grouse, has recommended 

even larger NSO buffers of 3 miles from lek sites, based on the uncertainty of protecting sage grouse nesting habitat with smaller 

buffers. Holloran (2005) found that active drilling of a well within 3.1 miles of a lek had a negative impact on lek attendance, 

while the presence of a producing well (absent construction/drilling activity) within 1.9 miles of a lek had a significant negative 

effect on lek attendance. Walker et al. (2007) found that sage grouse habitat within 4 miles of a lek site was important to the 

persistence of the lek. Conversely, Walker et al. (2007) concluded that leks heavily impacted by oil and gas development 

typically became inactive within 3-4 years.” Harju et al. (2010) examined effect of distance from well(s) on lek attendance and 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-602 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

found variable results in different study areas. According to Harju et al. (2010), in the Moxa area, significant negative impacts 

extended out to Xmile from leks; in the Wamsutter area, negative impacts of wells extended out to Umile from leks; in the 

Pinedale area, negative impacts extended out to 1 mile; in the Bighorn Basin and Powder River areas, significant effects extended 

all the way out to 2Umiles, which was the maximum distance studied. Meanwhile, in the Sage Hen (Wind River Basin) and Shirley 

(Basin) sites, no significant effects were found, with no leks within Xmile of development for Sage Hen or within Umile of leks 

for Shirley. Holloran et al. (2010) found that yearling females avoided nesting within 950m of wells, while yearling males 

avoided leks near energy infrastructure, and those that did lek near oil and gas wells had a higher mortality rate and lower 

probability of establishing a breeding territory. We recommend a 4-mile NSO with well density limitations of 1 pad per square 

mile inside Core Areas.

67. Well density limits should be imposed to supplement NSO buffers Holloran (2005) found that when wellfields reached 

densities greater than one well per 699 acres reduced the breeding populations of males at lek sites. Doherty (2008) 

determined that there was a significant decline in lek populations statewide once wells exceeded 1 well per square mile, but was 

unable to detect a statistically significant difference at well densities below 1 per square mile. Specifically, the analysis showed a 

17% increase in lek inactivity at the 4-year time lag state, but this increase was statistically insignificant when the data from Zones 

I and II were pooled. Notably, when the analysis was restricted to Zone II (southwestern Wyoming), a statistically significant 

14% increase in lek inactivity with the 4-year time lag was detected at low densities of wells (1-12 wells per 32 km2). It is notable 

that when leks that switched from low-welldensity (1-12/30 ha) to medium or higher (13+), there was no longer a statistically 

significant difference. Doherty acknowledged (at p. 77) that low sample sizes in all categories other than control lead to a higher 

likelihood of a Type II error, in which differences exist but are not identified as statistically significant. This analysis did not test 

the impact of distance to wells or distance to roads at all, and thus no conclusions can be inferred about the impacts of wells and 

roads sited close to leks at low densities of wells. These findings were later published as Doherty et al. (2010). Harju et al. (2010) 

found that lek population declines ranged from 13% to 79% at 4 to 8 wellpads per square mile, depending on locale.

All Both emc0343GB

68. Appropriate No Surface Occupancy buffers for leks are needed Walker et al. (2007) found that coalbed methane development 

within 2 miles of a sagegrouse lek had a negative effect on lek attendance. Holloran (2005) found that active drilling within 3.1 

miles of a lek reduced breeding populations, while wells already constructed and drilled within 1.9 miles of the lek reduced 

breeding populations. In Canada, Carpenter et al. (2010) found that sage grouse strongly avoided oil and gas infrastructure to a 

distance of 1.9 km, and avoided two-track vehicle trails more weakly to a distance of 1.5 km; the closest that a grouse was 

located to a coalbed methane well in this study was 1,293m. Harju et al (2008) found that negative impacts of development on 

lek populations extended 4.8 km (3 miles) from the development. Both Holloran (2005) and Walker et al. (2007) documented 

the extirpation of breeding populations at active leks as a result of oil and gas development in the Upper Green River Valley and 

Powder River Basin, respectively. Rowland et al. (2006: A4-3 through A4-7) provide a useful literature review of the distance 

that impacts spread beyond the edge of disturbed areas into adjacent habitats. Males use shrubs <1 km (0.6 mi) from a lek for

foraging, loafing, and shelter (Rothenmaier 1979, Emmons and Braun 1984, Autenrieth 1981). In Wyoming, State and BLM 

policies erroneously use this as a basis for an 0.6-mile No Surface Occupancy buffer around leks. However, there is no science 

to indicate that preventing wells within 0.6 mile of a lek will eliminate negative population impacts on sage grouse. In fact, the 

1.9-mile buffer is the minimum amount found to be needed to avoid negative impacts to breeding grouse by Holloran (2005), 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-603

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and indeed, to protect the nesting hens that site their nests within 5 miles of a lek, an even larger buffer may be needed.

69. As a rule, breeding and nesting activity are concentrated in the habitats surrounding the lek site. In a Montana study, Wallestad 

and Schladweiler (1974) found that no male sage grouse traveled farther than 1.8 km from a lek during the breeding season. But 

following breeding, males may make long migrations to distant summer ranges (Connelly et al. 1988). Hulet et al. (1986) found

that 10 of 13 hens nested within 1.9 miles of the lek site during the first year of their southern Idaho study, with an average 

distance of 1.7 miles from the lek site; 100% of hens nested within 2 miles of the lek site during the second year of this study, 

with an average distance from lek of 0.5 mile. In Montana, Wallestad and Pyrah (1974) found that 73% of nests were built within 

2 miles of the lek, but only one nest occurred within 0.5 mile of the lek site. But in Bates Hole, Wyoming, Holloran (1999) found 

that average nesting distance from lek site was 3.25 km for adults and 5.27 km for yearlings. Wakkinen et al. (1992) cautioned 

that leks were poor predictors of sage grouse nest sites; although 92% of sage grouse nested within 3.2 km of a lek in this study, 

sage grouse did not necessarily nest near the same lek where breeding took place. Lyon (2000) pointed out that quarter-mile 

lek buffers were insufficient to maintain the viability of grouse populations. Several years ago, a multi-state group of fish and 

game biologists evaluated the standard BLM mitigation measures for grouse (at the time, quarter-mile No Surface Occupance 

around leks with a two-mile Timing Limitation Stipulation for leks that prevented drilling and construction activity during 

breeding and nesting periods, but permitted production-related activity), and found them wholly inadequate (Christiansen and 

Bohne 2007). Connelly et al. (2000) recommended that sage grouse habitat should be protected within 3.2 km of lek sites under

ideal habitat conditions, within 5 km when habitat conditions are not ideal, and within 18 km where sage grouse populations are 

migratory. Furthermore, these researchers stated that in areas where 40% or more of the original breeding habitat has been 

lost, all remaining habitat should be protected. Holloran (2005) provided a critical test of BLM’s lek buffers’ effectiveness in the 

Jonah and Pinedale Anticline fields, and found that in the face of fullfield gas development, finding that extirpation was expected 

for sage grouse in both fields within 19 years if conditions remained the same (and, of course, conditions have become much 

worse for grouse under the continued intensification of drilling and road construction in these two fields).

All Both emc0343GB

70. The analysis should also disclose impacts of the hunting of the Grouse, which is still allowed in at least 8 of the 11 states where 

it is found. Importantly, Sage Grouse conservation efforts such as seasonal restrictions and bag limits have been quite successful 

in maintaining healthy populations. The same has been shown for motorized access and use. For example, Grouse leks are 

concise, well-established, historic areas that can last for decades. Add to this that leks are mostly in use for strutting/mating 

during crepuscular hours and that motorized recreation is generally NOT undertaken during those hours...the two can be 

successfully separated.

All Both flb0000gb

71. There is significant scientific evidence that the BLM should protect sage grouse habitat by establishing a 4-mile No Surface 

Occupancy zone around each and every sage grouse lek, For the reasons enumerated below, this would promote their 

conservation and minimize the need for listing sage grouse under the ESA.

CO BLM emc0057RM

72. For Special Status Species, like the sage-grouse, "habitat loss and fragmentation have been, and remain, the primary cause of 

their imperiled status." DRMP/DEIS, Ch. 3 at 3-100. BLM recognizes that "[l]arge contiguous areas of habitat have been shown 

to support aud maintain Greater sage-grouse populations, and are necessary in order to provide lower densities of nesting 

hens." !d. Ch. 4 at 4-283. Given the highly specific requirements of sage-grouse nesting and wintering habitat, any disruption is 

CO BLM emc0057RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-604 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

detrimental to sage-grouse populations. !d. at 4-283. Thus, BLM recognizes it is crucial to preserve large blocks of 

un-fragmented sagebrush habitat. Considering only the Castle lek, all of the split estate parcels on the Proposed Tyler

Mountain ACEC are within 2-3 miles of a lek. Furthermore, this split estate surface provides important nesting, brood rearing 

and winter habitat for a resident population of sage-grouse. Exhibit I at Ex. Bto R. Watson's Comment Letter (Dr. Holloran 

report,March 22, 2011 ). A more recent on-site survey confirms that these sage-grouse occupy 88% of the split estate parcels 

on the Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC. 7 Exhibit11 toR. Watson's Comment Letter. Dr. Holloran has concluded that 

"sagebrush habitats on [Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] are suitable for sage-grouse; all sagebrush dominated

areas of [Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] that were surveyed during field efforts are used by sage-grouse; and all sagebrush 

habitats on [Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] that were surveyed during field efforts should be protected as core sage-grouse 

habitat as established in the Colorado greater sage-grouse conservation plan ... the[se] sagebrush dominated areas on 

[Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC} have special worth, significance, distinctiveness and substantial values for sage-grouse ... " 

Exhibit II Cover Memo atl to R. IVatson ·s Comrnent Letter (emphasis added). See also Holloran in Stolz EA Comments (Ex. 1) 

at Exhibit Band Maps at Exhibit D-1 to D-3. His expert conclusion is that the Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC, including 

split-estate parcels subject to federal oil and gas development, hosts a largely sedentary, non-migratory population of 

sagegrouse that enjoy unfragmented access to all their seasonal habitat needs and that need to be protected as core sage-grouse 

habitat. !d.

73. The CDOW has also identified the Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC split-estate parcels as important sage-grouse habitat. 

According to biologists with CDOW, the Middle Park sage-grouse population is one of only two populations in Colorado not 

influenced by oil and gas development. ld, Cover Memo at 1. The CDOW recommended the deferral of the Proposed Tyler 

Mountain ACEC parcels from leasing and emphasized that the CO Sage-Grouse Plan calls for "expansion of current greater 

sage-grouse protections (e.g., 0.6 mile no surface occupancy (NSO) around leks, expansion of nesting habitat timing limitations 

to 4-mile radii)." See Aug 20 II Lease Sale Comments, L. Sidener, CDOW, (February 17, 2011 ). Thus, this CDOW 

recommendation would include all the Ranch split estate parcels which are 3-4 miles or less from the Castle lek. !d. CDOW also

strongly recommended that BLM defer leasing on CDOW core area on both federal and fee surface. Jd. The CDOW concluded 

its comments on the Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC sage grouse by noting that "base[ d] on radio collard data, all the parcels 

... had sage grouse activity." !d.

CO BLM emc0057RM

74. Sage-grouse Breeding (Lek) Habitat - All BLM split estate federal parcels are located within approximately 6.4 km of an active 

sage-grouse lek and negative impacts of energy development to male lck attendance have been documented out to 18 km from 

lek. Negative impacts of energy development have been documented out to 6.4 km from a lek. Exhibit 1, Ex. B. at 2 to R. 

Watson's Comment Letter. Female sage-grouse breeding on leks disturbed by access roads nest farther from the lek, have 

lower nest initiation rates and lower annual survival. !d. at l.

CO BLM emc0057RM

75. As discussed by Dr. Holloran (Exhibit II, Cover Memo), in the DRMP/DEIS Appendix S, the Kremmling Potential Conservation 

Area is recommended as an ACEC by BLM because the "area contains important core habitat for greater sage-grouse . . ."

DRMP/DEIS, App. Sat E-11-12. Yet, the Kremmling PCA is located within core sagegrouse habitat associated with the Castle lek, 

the identified lek, on the [Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC]. Exhibit II, Cover Memo at 2. As Dr. Holloran points out:

without protection of the population of sage-grouse that breeds on the lek located on [Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC], the 

CO BLM emc0057RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-605

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Kremmling PCA ACEC will provide no value for sage-grouse because there will be no sage-grouse to use the area. . . Given that 

habitats on (Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] have special worth, significance, distinctiveness and substantial values, it is my 

opinion that sagebrush habitats on [Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] are worthy of at/east the same protections as those

afforded the Kremmling PCA ACEC. Exhibit 11, Cover Memo at 2. (emphasis added). The fact that BLM has proposed to

protect the sage-grouse habitat in the Kremmling PCA ACEC and the sage-grouse and paleontological resources in the 

Kremmling Ammonite ACEC should provide strong and compelling precedent for a special management designation for the 

same resources that are found over the BLM's interest in the Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC.

76. The NTT report does not adequately address lek viewing. Lek viewing is an important seasonal recreational use in North Park. 

The local NPSGWG North Park Conservation Plan does address this impact and recommends allowing lek viewing provided 

that lek viewers follow appropriate lek viewing etiquette. Lek viewers bring a substantial amount of money into Jackson County 

in April - a time when almost no other recreationists are coming to the county. If the BLM is not going to allow commercial 

permits for lek viewing, then we would request that this economic loss be included in the socioeconomic evaluation of the 

sage-grouse EIS. Please also include an analysis of removing the opportunity for wildlife viewing for a growing segment of the 

public.

CO BLM emc0060RM

77. While I understand the research behind the recommendations by the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (Dec 21, 2011) for 

surface occupancy limitations within 4 miles of active leks and a cap of 3% disturbance per section (640 acres) it needs to be 

remembered that not all sections are of equal importance to grouse and are usually not even homogeneous in value to

grouse across an entire section. An active well pad on a flat section does not have the same impact as one shielded by 

topography, even when they may both be the same distance from the lek. A road with a seasonal timing limitation or even a 

morning closure in the spring does not have the same level of effect that one without such limitations may have.

Also, remember that not all anthropogenic disturbances are equal in effect. While the disturbance of heavy industrial activity in

close association with leks may nearly always be negative, I personally have seen the birds shift the location a lek to recent 

pipeline scars when the original lek location has become overgrown. There is a range of effects, negative to positive, depending

on the type and location of any given disturbance and this range needs to be built into any set of disturbance thresholds.

CO Both emc0061RM

78. It would seem that the main focus should be placed on the MOST critical lek areas and wintering areas by creating small wildlife 

management areas with the leks in the center. The two-mile radius as mentioned in the Gunnison Sage Grouse Conservation 

Plan seems excessive as related to roads or trails. If horse and foot travel are allowed as in the travel plan for the Gunnison 

NCA, why would an occasional vehicle on a road (not in the middle of the Lek area) disturb grouse already used to hearing and 

seeing them? Again, speed limits and noise limits could be enforced.

CO BLM emc0067RM

79. Recreation: Viewing of leks should be discouraged if not prohibited and lek disturbance by government agencies should be held

to a minimum.

CO Both emc0069RM

80. Middle Park Sage-Grouse Population Information

Over the last decade high male counts on leks in Middle Park have ranged from a high of 313 males in 2001 to a low of 161 males 

in 2008. Lek count effort and method has been consistent since 2002. The goal is to count all leks three times per season, with 

less than 20 active leks to count this is an acceptable goal. High male counts from 2009 – 2011 have remained relatively constant 

CO Both emc0063RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-606 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

at 201, 191 and 193, respectively, and the hope is that lek numbers will continue to improve over the next several years. The 

numbers of males counted across Colorado are still generally at a 5 – 10 year low, this is not unexpected given normal periodic 

population variability observed in the past and are expected and somewhat predictable based on weather conditions and 

population fluctuations. The MP and Statewide plans both discuss the hunting of sage-grouse populations. At the current season 

and bag limit (7 day season, bag and possession limit of 2 birds) the MPSGWG does not believe that hunting negatively impacts 

the Middle Park populations. The MPSGWG recognizes the importance that hunters have to providing conservation funding.

Known active leks in Middle Park are distributed across private (48%) and public (53%) lands. Of the leks on public lands 43% 

occur on BLM lands. All leks located on private lands in Middle Park are within one mile of BLM lands. Therefore, the EIS should 

consider land-use changes and potential degradation occurring on lands adjacent to BLM in their cumulative impacts analysis. 

Sage grouse have diverse habitat needs, and their ranges extend across administrative boundaries. The overlapping of sage 

grouse ranges across multiple landowners also highlights the importance of local, cooperative planning that includes 

representatives from all landowner groups, such as the local working group structure already present in Colorado.

81. The MPSGWG believes the CPW Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) maps represent 

the best data currently available. However the working group strongly believes that these boundaries should be flexible enough 

to allow the incorporation of new data as it becomes available. The MPSGWG has concerns with drawing lines on a map at a 

broad scale and using this information for detailed project planning. High quality habitat may be missed in the overall range maps 

or designated PPH and even PGH areas. Although the MPSGWG understands how these maps can expedite management 

procedures, the work group believes BLM should continue to ground truth areas in close proximity to PPH to verify habitat 

quality areas before or during the development of projects and decisions.

The MPSGWG also believes BLM should include an Adaptive Management approach in the plan to allow flexibility in 

management decisions. This flexibility should allow for land-use and management changes to best conserve sage-grouse. 

Sage-grouse lek locations and activity status change over time as can habitat quality, thus the final BLM document should allow 

for these changes. In Middle Park a lek that was found to be active again in 2009 was last recorded active in 1959, demonstrating 

how grouse use changes over time.

The MPSGWG suggest eliminating isolated inclusions of PGH within PPH areas to decrease the fragmentation of the existing 

maps. Decreasing the fragmentation with the PPH can increase BLM management efficiencies and sustain the integrity of the 

PPH areas. The map was created using a vegetative model which does not identify habitat quality at the ground level, the 

working group believes that the pockets of PGH habitat are comparable in quality to the surrounding PPH areas.

CO Both emc0063RM

82. Off-site mitigation is listed as an option under the Objectives Section (page 9) in response to an area with greater than 3% 

disturbance. The MPSGWG does not believe off-site mitigation to be an effective tool to protect or improve habitat in an area. 

It is very difficult, if not impossible to judge the habitat importance between an on-site and off-site parcel to sage-grouse 

populations. Additionally, sage grouse exhibit a high fidelity to historical ranges, particularly lek sites, and forced migration to 

alternative habitats may have the effect of reducing the population. The MPSGWG does not support off-site mitigation as an 

option for off-setting areas with greater than 3% disturbance. Mitigation should occur at an area adjacent to or within close 

CO Both emc0063RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-607

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

proximity of the disturbance to best benefit the (sub)population impacted. The work group does support concentrating and 

clustering disturbances.

The 3% disturbance concept needs greater clarification. For example, the NTT report does not clarify how the 3% value was 

selected. Nor does the report specify if the 3% disturbance will be calculated in PPH across the state or within each population. 

The MPSGWG recommends that BLM maintain some flexibility to allow disturbance to occur in lesser quality habitat (even if 

the defined area has met the 3% disturbance). Adaptability is important, it is possible that lesser quality habitat may occur on 

BLM lands and not adjacent private properties therefore it may benefit sage-grouse to allow controlled disturbance on BLM 

lands while protecting private property. Recommendations from BLM field staff in consultation with local wildlife agencies will 

be important to identify specific, local habitat quality within priority habitat areas.

83. The MPSGWG suggests that BLM evaluate and analyze the potential impacts of lek viewing on sage-grouse populations and 

develop best management practices for lek viewing. Lek locations in Middle Park are not well known by the general public and 

the MPSGWG does not want to encourage public viewing in the area but believes the EIS should analyze the potential impacts 

where viewing does occur on BLM lands. It is believed that poorly managed viewing can create disturbances during the breeding 

season that can disrupt breeding behavior. BLM currently has inadequate control mechanisms to mitigate impacts on leks 

caused by lek viewing. Concerns related to lek viewing disturbances were discussed in both the MPSG Plan (pg 19) and the CCP 

(pg 172) and in the attached CCP GrSG Disturbance Guidelines (Appendix II). General wildlife viewing guidelines are listed on

the CPW webpage (http://wildlife.state.co.us/Viewing/Tips/Pages/Tips.aspx). Although the Granby area is under habitat loss 

pressures, it is believed that public disturbance during the breeding season or possibly increased vehicle traffic alone may have 

contributed to sage-grouse abandoning a breeding site in close proximity to a county road.

CO Both emc0063RM

84. While scientists count leks and evaluate habitat potential, it is important that sound alternative recognize local experience 

regarding sage grouse activity around the leks. It has been reported that some areas identified as habitat have not experienced 

grouse activity in more than a decade. Another factor that should be carefully weighed is whether areas for necessary lor 

breeding or nesting are more important than other stages of grouse development. CMA questions why ten years is used for the 

lek survey when the average life span of a greater sage-grouse is three years.

CO Both emc0143RM

85. i. Lander, WY RMP

Alternative B stipulates light livestock grazing levels in areas typically preferred by cattle, such as riparian-wetland areas, adjacent 

upland areas, and around salt and mineral supplements and water troughs and developments. Also, Alternative B prohibits salt 

or mineral supplements within 0.5 mile of riparian-wetland habitats to prevent livestock congregation at water sources.

Alternative B prohibits the placement of salt or mineral supplements within 0.6 mile of greater sage-grouse leks. All these 

provisions would protect important sage-grouse habitats (foraging areas, breeding areas, nesting areas) from livestock trampling 

and the impacts of heavy plant utilization.

East Both emc0089RM

86. Sage-grouse conservation guidance from BLM should reflect the most current science on sagegrouse movement and migrations. 

Recent studies of nest-site selection and nest success have made clear that nest distributions are spatially related to lek 

locations (Holloran and Anderson 2005, Aldridge and Boyce 2007, Doherty et al. 2010a). Holloran and Anderson (2005)

documented 64% of nests occurred within 3.1 miles of leks, 80% of nests occurred within 5 miles of leks, and 20% of nests 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-608 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

occurred at distances greater than 5 miles from leks; nest success also was greater the farther a nest occurred from a lek, 

indicating a disproportionate potential importance of these more distant nests for population recruitment. Based on their 

results, Holloran and Anderson (2005) concluded that to protect and maintain sage-grouse populations, land managers should 

minimize or halt actions that reduce suitability of nesting habitats within 3.1 miles of a lek.

87. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach

Within core areas, stipulations on BLM, FS, Wind River Indian Reservation, and State of Wyoming lands limit the number of 

projects and the amount of allowed disturbance (no more than 5%13) allowed per square mile or 640 acres. Surface disturbance 

is prohibited within a 0.6 mile buffer around active leks (no surface occupancy - NSO), which includes roads during the

breeding, nesting and brood-rearing periods (mid-March through end of June). In addition, a March 15 to June 30 timing 

limitation stipulation is required within nesting habitat within 4 miles of leks. Main roads used to transport production and/or 

waste products must be more than 1.9 miles from the perimeter of occupied grouse leks. Other roads used for access or

maintenance must be more than 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks. Noise levels at the perimeter of a lek should not 

exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise from 6 pm to 8 am, so as not to disturb breeding activities (March 1 - May 15). Finally, 

proponents of new projects are expected to coordinate with the permitting agency and WGFD biologists to determine which 

leks need to be monitored and what data should be collected/reported. The Executive Order clearly identifies thresholds and 

outline adaptive management responses if declines in sage-grouse numbers occur14.

However, in non-core areas, the EO recommends a 2-mile seasonal buffer around occupied leks and a 0.25 mile NSO buffer 

around active leks. Research has shown that the latter stipulation is inadequate and scientifically without merit. In addition, a 

surface disturbance cap is lacking from non-core area stipulations

East Both emc0089RM

88. Habitat fragmentation may be one of the worst effects from such activities, resulting from infrastructure associated with the 

development, including access roads. The Fish and Wildlife Service has noted that these habitat fragmentation impacts may have 

greater effects on sage-grouse greater than the associated direct habitat losses. In detail, the NTT states that fragmentation of 

sagebrush habitats has been cited as a primary cause of the decline of sage-grouse populations because the species requires large 

expanses of contiguous sagebrush. (p. 20) Specifically, the NTT points out studies that have documented negative effects of 

fragmentation as a result of oil and gas development and its associated infrastructure on lek persistence, lek attendance, winter 

habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival rate, and female nest site choice. (p. 20) Throughout a collection of scientific 

studies, the documented impact on lek attendance ranges from 3.1 to as far away as 11.7 miles from a lek. Negative effects of 

well surface occupancy were apparent out to 3.1 miles, the largest radius investigated, in 2 of 7 study areas in Wyoming (Harju 

et al. 2010). Curvilinear relationships show that lek counts decreased with distance to the nearest active drilling rig, producing 

well, or main haul road and that development within 3 to 4 miles of leks decrease counts of displaying males (Holloran 2005). 

All well‐supported models in Walker et al. (2007) indicate a strong negative effect, estimated as proportion of development 

within either 0.5 miles or 2 miles, on lek persistence. A model with development at 4 miles had less support, but the regression 

coefficient indicated that negative impacts within 4 miles were still apparent. Two additional studies reported negative impacts 

apparent out to 8 miles on large lek occurrence (>25 males; Tack 2009) and out to 11.7 miles on lek trends (Johnson et al. 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-609

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

2011), the largest scales evaluated.

89. Studies in Avian Biology, a peer-reviewed journal also recently published a review of the cumulative impacts to sage-grouse due 

to landscape fragmentation (Knick and Connelly 2011). Closely reflecting the NTT Report, the Studies in Avian Biology review 

emphasized two clear findings:

- Multiple studies have recommended that sage-grouse populations should be managed at large spatial scales (Connelly et al. 

2000, Connelly et al. 2004, Holloran and Anderson 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Aldridge and Boyce 2007). This study suggested 

an endogenous sagebrush landscape scale between 4.5 and 9.0 km to which sage-grouse dispersal and movement patterns have 

adapted. Growing evidence suggests that sage-grouse respond to large scales that exceed currently applied management scales 

of no disturbance within 0.5 km around leks and within 3.2 km around leks during the breeding season (15 March-15 June) in 

areas with coal-bed natural gas extractions (Walker et al. 2007, Doherty et al. 2008). See Ch.14, p.30.

- Conservation of sagebrush within 5 km of leks has been recommended to maintain the most locations used for nesting and 

early brood-rearing by non-migratory populations, whereas 18-km radii have been recommended for migratory populations 

(Wakkinen et al. 1992, Connelly et al. 2000a, Holloran and Anderson 2005).

Despite these numbers, which conclusively demonstrate negative impacts to sage grouse from mineral development as close as 

3.1 miles (roughly 5 km) and as far-reaching as 11.7 miles from leks, the BLM’s past conservation measures have only focused on 

0.25 mile No Surface Occupancy (NSO) buffers around leks, and timing stipulations applied to 0.6 mile buffers around leks to 

protect both breeding and nesting activities. The comparisons between the NTT’s summary, the Studies in Avian Biology review 

and BLM’s conservation efforts are dramatic and speak to the need for a new paradigm of management. Clearly, recent scientific 

data is not reflected in current federal land agency sage grouse conservation. The FWS reasoning to determine sage grouse as 

"warranted but precluded" under the Endangered Species Act reiterates a disapproval of current management approaches:

Our assessment of the implementation of regulations and associated stipulations guiding energy development indicates that 

current measures do not adequately ameliorate impacts to sage-grouse. Energy and associated infrastructure development, 

including both nonrenewable and renewable energy resources, are expected to continue to expand in the foreseeable future. 

Unless protective measures consistent with new research findings are widely implemented via a regulatory process, those 

measures cannot be considered an adequate regulatory mechanism in the context of our review. (Federal Register, March 10, 

2010).

East Both emc0167

90. The Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems are experiencing a relatively new threat in the form of large-scale industrial wind energy 

projects. Part of Spring Valley in Nevada has recently been developed with large wind turbine generators very close to active

leks. This is inappropriate for the recovery of the Greater sage grouse.

GB Both emc0404GB

91. The characteristics of a lek need to be definitively analyzed and established. Buffer zones, where necessary and appropriate, to 

protect leks should be imposed only when research and local land managers deem them to be essential for greater sage-grouse 

habitat. The size of a buffer zone must be determined on a case-by-case basis and should account for variances in topography, 

current utilization, vegetation and other factors. The perimeter should be defined by an irregular polygon which reflects 

conditions. Rather than an arbitrary diameter dictated by policy, observation data should be used to determine the maximum 

lek buffer perimeter. Areas which provide habitat for nesting and brooding should be defined in a similar fashion.

GB Both rmc0056GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-610 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

92. Actions taken to-date and proposed by the Dillon LWG

The Dillon LWG, in addition to holding regular meetings, has undertaken several actions to assist sage-grouse conservation:

- designed and helped designate a public sage-grouse viewing lek in the Reservoir Creek area

IDMT Both rmc0028GB

93. Where are the Sage-grouse (habitat & location) delinated on the map for the Tex Creek WMA? The BOR/IDFG conducted the 

lek surveys as well as winter in 2008 and there are a lot of birds using the area year round. This is primary wintering habitat!

IDMT Both cfc0005GB

94. After studying the maps delineating, "key habitat", "perennial grassland", "annual grassland", "preliminary general habitat" 

"preliminary priority habitat" and the distribution of "transmission lines" I have to conclude that they must be the initial effort. 

However, they are woefully incomplete and inaccurate. It appears that the habitat maps were developed using know leks 

("breeding/nesting habitat") and that other seasonal habitat, e.g. late summer brood habitat, and fall/winter habitat was not 

considered. As an example the whole upper Birch Creek and upper Lemhi Valleys were not included even though research has 

found that these areas help sustain the lower Birch Creek and lower Lemhi Valley breeding populations. Another example is the 

Kilgore/Shotgun Valley area which is summer habitat for the Sand Creek breeding birds.

IDMT Both emc0181GB

95. In the CMR NWR draft CCP and EIS (2010), a map on page 223 identifies sage grouse leks on the CMR Refuge. A map on page 

305 identifies roads. These maps correlate. The RMP should propose a study to determine if leks are statistically more likely to 

be within a mile of a road.

MT-RM Both emc0013RM

96. We agree with the state wildlife agencies that a buffer preventing energy development within 4 miles of active leks is preferred 

to protect as many nests as possible. The latest assessment suggests that Keystone is likely to implement a 3-mile buffer instead. 

We recommend that this not be permitted on BLM lands within sage-grouse core areas.

MT-RM Both emc0034RM

97. I am responding to the comment period for the Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Conservation. Starting on March 7th through May 

17th 2011 my husband and I watched Sage Grouse activity in the Reese River Valley area on and around the Yomba Shoshone 

Indian Reservation. Starting at early morning hours as early as 4:30am, we watched and waited for the male Sage-Grouse to 

arrive and start their dance to draw in the female birds. Sometimes the birds would dance until 9am. After watching them for 

several weeks, we noticedthat we never saw any females in the leks. Over the next couple months, and observing 4 different lek 

areas, we only saw maybe 2 females in 1 of the 4 leks. My husband who was raised in Reese River Valley and is Native American 

(Shoshone), tells of times when he was a child that he would watch 50+ birds in different lek areas, which now the same lek area 

only has 8 -10 birds (this lek is in an area that was strip mowed).

Several of our concerns are the fact that in the past 5 years, the BLM has mowed alternative strips of sagebrush, right through 

some of these lek areas. Sage-Grouse will return to the same areas to “Dance” for decades. However, after their habitat was 

destroyed with the mowing we have noticed that the numbers have declined in those areas. Not only did the sagebrush serve 

as food for the birds, but it also was a hiding place for them away from predators. We do not believe that the mowing that was 

done could possibly benefit these birds in any manner, but actually caused them more harm. After the male birds stopped 

dancing in late May early June, we could never locate any nests in any surrounding areas, which may be due to low numbers of 

female birds. I have been in the Reese River Valley off and on since the late 90’s, and have noticed a drastic decline in the number 

of birds we see on the roads, and in areas of the valley that we used to see larger numbers. It is very alarming that these birds 

numbers are declining so rapidly.

NVCA Both emc0104GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-611

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

98. Richmond Mtn and Mary’s Mtn Leks

Leks are definitely imperiled.

- Potential bird interaction between Mary’s Mtn leks and Palisade Lek Complex.

- 2006 Carlin Fire burn area immediately northwest of Carlin responded well to both fire rehab sagebrush seeding efforts, and 

seeding and natural release of shrubs, grasses and forbs.

- 2007 Party Fire area closer to Emigrant Pass is dominated by grasslands.

- Latest primary impacts to both leks are the 2011 Chukar Canyon Fire and present and ongoing mine expansion

NVCA Both emc0101GB

99. Palisade Leks #1, #2, #3 Complex

- The Palisade Lek Complex area (55 males in 2010) should have the Category 1 (yellow) designation where the 75% breeding 

bird density (BBD) radius of 5.3 miles seems to cover the intact sagebrush habitat and ongoing fire-rehabilitated habitat from the 

center of the leks. There is a small sliver of intact sage outside the 5.3-mile radius near Carlin between I-80 and SR 278 that 

should be included.

- The majority of the lek complex is on private section at T 32 N., R 51 E., sec 23 in the checkerboard where it might be 

important to look into purchase from NV Land and Resource Co unless a private party has already done so.

- A lot of the #4 blue on south side of Emigrant Pass has potential pending recovery from recent wildfires (see General Info 

above regarding 5.3-mile radius) . Right now, a lot of it is a rolling grassland, primarily perennials, in need of additional artificial 

sagebrush and bitterbrush planting efforts. JBR/Dave Worley’s Newmont Inventory area lek survey/search in spring 1991-92 

included grouse observed on Emigrant Pass Ridge but did not confirm strutting behavior or lek areas. His reports are available 

at BLM Elko District Office.

- Wintering grouse observed within T31N, R51E, Section 4 during 1999 Rose Fire rehab by Leticia Lister, BLM in winter 

1999-2000. This area would fall within 5.3 miles of the leks and has scattered sagebrush cover.

- Confirm status of Interstate 80 Lek. Is it re-definition of UTMs and now one of the leks in the Palisade #1, #2, #3 Complex ?

NVCA Both emc0101GB

100. Cortez Range Leks –

- General Information - Consider the circa May 14, 2011 5.3-mile 100% Breeding Bird Density (BBD) radii around all leks as a 

start, with intact sagebrush habitat buffered by Category 2 designation and other designations (see next bullet). Exceptions 

would be where radius takes in active mine areas. I am starting to see some merit in the BBD as long as it is tempered with 

outlying critical summer/late brood-rearing and fall/winter habitat. UNR has documented grouse nesting around 20.5.km (2006 

Report) from a lek on the area relative to Falcon to Gonder grouse study. It is unclear as to why none of these leks are shown 

as part of 75% BBD on the same map for the entire Cortez Range and Cortez PMU.

- Anything in a given native/seeded grassland-dominated area within the 5.3-mile BBD radius shows the importance of trying 

additional ways to get sagebrush and other shrubs (bitterbrush) back on site in the future on a priority basis, as needed. Example 

here is any additional seeding on the BooHoo Fire/other burn areas with limited sagebrush cover.

- As discussed in our phone conversation, the UNR Study would confirm a lot of information in regard to habitat categories.

North Cortez#1, #2 and 2A: Negatively impacted by 2006

NVCA Both emc0101GB

101. North Cortez#1, #2 and 2A: Negatively impacted by 2006 BooHoo Fire. Block-burn configuration.

- Needs additional shrub planting efforts. Checkerboard public lands where shrubs were not seeded after the fire on private 

NVCA Both emc0101GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-612 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

lands in 2007-08. Some of the same affected private landowners on this checkerboard might allow for shrub planting efforts as 

of 2012. (Barrick as landowner on some sections is unknown but, if so, might agree as offsite mitigation.)

102. Cherry Springs #1, #2 and #3: Negatively impacted by 2006 BooHoo Fire although intact sagebrush habitat exists to the south 

and west. - All spring complex areas and associated riparian/meadow habitat outside of the BooHoo Fire protection fence were 

in very poor condition as of Fall 2009.

- Same as above in regard to seeding private lands on the checkerboard

NVCA Both emc0101GB

103. Modarelli #1 and #2 - Intact lek areas but directly southwest of 2007 BooHoo Fire burn.

- Suggest expanding Category 1 here to, at least, equivalent of 5.3-mile 75% BBD radius.

- Barrick Goldstrike has Hay Ranch base property and is livestock permittee for South Buckhorn Allotment, former “Rother 

Use Area” that includes the Modarelli Mine/Little Pole Creek area north to near North Cortez#1, #2 and 2A lek areas and 

south to Valley Fence/Big Pole Creek area.

- Modarelli Mine spring complex/Little Pole Creek habitat has been negatively impacted by chronic season-long livestock 

grazing. This was discussed with Gary Sundseth, Barrick Resources Manager, in December 2011. Jim Harmening, BLM Civil 

Engineer, estimates “around 100 sage-grouse” on the spring complex while completing BooHoo Fire livestock protection fence 

survey and design work in summer of 2008.

- Per Valley Fence constructed in early 2000s and range adjudication, Bailey Ranch and Slagowki Ranch are permittees to the 

south of Valley Fence

NVCA Both emc0101GB

104. Big Pole Creek Lek area- Lek area has been intact within a crested wheatgrass seeding with sagebrush cover on Potato Patch 

Allotment.

- Riparian/meadow habitat in poor condition including adjoining South Buckhorn Allotment.

- Suggest expanding Category 1 here to, at least, equivalent of 5.3-mile 75% BBD radius.

NVCA Both emc0101GB

105. Quartz Road Lek - Originally questioned as a lek area, with large concentration of grouse droppings, as noted by Jason Spence, 

Range Specialist, during 2004 horse gather. BLM Biologist requested confirmation by UNR as part of Falcon to Gonder Study . 

Later confirmed as an active lek by Mike Atamian, UNR starting in, at least, Spring 2006. Birds captured here for marking and 

part of UNR Study.

- Suggest expanding Category 1 here to, at least, equivalent of 5.3-mile 75% BBD radius.

- Additional rehab, including any needed shrub seeding within, at least, the 75% BBD radius.

- Riparian areas showed some improvement around 2003 when Cortez Joint Venture elected Conservation Non-Use, and after 

2004 horse gather although some trespass cattle documented from adjoining Battle Mountain District. Barrick now allows use 

by Filippini Ranch and Tomera Ranch (Crescent Valley and north side of range) as latest – need confirmation.

NVCA Both emc0101GB

106. Camp Lek – Currently shown with Category 2(?) but should be Category 1 within the 5.3-mile radius from lek. NVCA Both emc0101GB

107. Horse Creek #1 and #2 Leks – Intact lek areas with Category 1 habitat, as shown.

- Imperiled by exploration drilling and potential mine expansion to the north, west and south. Drilling has been ongoing in the 

Horse Canyon area since, at least, 2007. Anecdotal Info: Drilling has resulted in a profusion of “artesian well-type” water flow 

in Horse Canyon.

NVCA Both emc0101GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-613

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

- West Pine Valley Exploration, including use of seismic trucks in the direct vicinity of Horse Creek #1 Lek, proposed in Summer 

2012. Upfront preliminary habitat impact avoidance and minimization measures discussed with Barrick at BLM Elko office on

1/26/2012. I expressed concerns about the area not shown as 75% BBD and that mitigation measures would still need to be 

applied for any exploration proposal.

- Horse Creek #1: On Battle Mountain BLM District. As known, it has been a trend lek with the largest and consistent number 

of male grouse over the years on the Cortez PMU. Concerns from Mike Atamian, UNR researcher, with 5/12/2006 e-mail 

excerpt as follows:

Ken,

Mike Podborny suggested I talk to you about what we can do about the residual Crested Wheat on the Horse Creek #1 lek. 

Currently there is 2 years of residual growth out there and its around 2-3 feet tall. The birds do not seem to like it at all for 

displaying let along roosting over night, and observations of this lek are basically useless. The question is, is there anyway we can 

get the lek mowed or burned at the end of this breeding/growing season? or if you have any other ideas on how we can get the 

crested wheat back under control out there. If we do nothing I'm afraid the birds will abandon the lek or if a wildfire

starts out there with that much fuel we'll lose the surrounding nesting and brood rearing habitat. Please let me know your 

thoughts on what we should and can do.

108. Brock Canyon Lek – Unknown status of habitat by Elko BLM. 2001 Beowawe Fire burned seasonal habitat on Cortez Range 

including the mouth of Brock Canyon.

Buckhorn Road Lek – Battle Mountain District - Unknown status of habitat

Linka Creek Lek – Shown on old Form 1 at UTM 555800 E, 44550000N. Area has been affected by several wildfires since 1999.

Sheep Creek Lek – Unknown status. UTM 563349E, 4458579N, unknown NAD. Unknown status as apparently checked in 

1990.

Pine Valley – Rand Ranch Lek: Area surveyed by helicopter in 2004. Survey notes indicate “poor habitat conditions.”

NVCA Both emc0101GB

109. NAFB would like to see the data that the sage grouse habitat categorization was based on. NAFB has conducted several wildlife 

surveys in the habitat categorization areas delineated on the map. During the past 8 years the only sage grouse observed on the 

Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) were within 200 feet of the NTTR north boundary near Breen Creek on the Kawich 

Range. In 2005, NDOW personnel assisted NAFB Natural Resources personnel on a sage grouse survey to locate sage grouse 

and leks. No birds or leks were observed and regional NDOW personnel stated that potential habitat for sage grouse was poor 

at the best. NAFB does not agree with the current map depicting the extent of important and moderate habitats on NTTR.

NVCA Both emc0280GB

110. CRI operates the Rochester Mine which is located 23 miles northeast of Lovelock on the southern end of the Humboldt 

Mountain Range in Pershing County, Nevada. Sage grouse summer, winter, and breeding habitat has been identified by past 

Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) maps in Rochester mine's project area. NDOW has not, however, indentified any active 

leks or viable sage grouse populations around the project area. According to NDOW's Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation 

Project Report (December 2011 Final Performance Report): "The Pershing County portion of this planning unit has suffered 

tremendous losses of sagebrush habitats due to wildfire over the last decade with some mountain ranges burning almost 

completely (e.g. Eugene Mountains). The most viable population within the county is the Sonoma PMU. Twenty-four leks were 

surveyed in this PMU in 2011 with only 6 being active. A peak total of 52 males were observed resulting in an average of 8.7 

NVCA Both emc0302GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-614 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

males per active lek. This is a 7% decline from the previous year where the average attendance was 9.4 males. The long-term 

viability of PMUs such as the Eugene, Majuba, East Range, and Humboldt PM Us is considered very low, with some of these 

populations potentially extirpated already.'

111. VGC knows from working with BLM to secure authorization for our mineral activities on ELMadministered lands, that BLM 

already has rules and policies to ensure that mineral projects protect sage-grouse habitat. The U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") has 

similar policies to protect sage-grouse habitat on National Forest System lands. BLM Notices and BLM and USFS Plans of

Operations for mineral projects contain numerous permit conditions and stipulations to protect sage-grouse habitat. Examples 

of these measures include seasonal restrictions on when and where activities can occur, buffer zones around identified 

sage-grouse leks, limiting constructionof new overhead structures that provide raptors perching sites, and installing 

anti-perching devices on existing transmission lines.Given the existing regulatory framework under which VGC and other 

mineral exploration and development companies must operate, we question the need for a completely new policy direction, 

like that proposed in the NTT Report. Before BLM and USFS "go back to the drawing board" and create new regulatory 

programs to protect sage-grouse habitat, they should first perform a gap analysis of the existing policies to determine what - if 

anything - needs to be improved or modified.

NVCA Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

112. It is hard to understand claims made in the report that appear aimed at minimizing the impacts of the 1999-2007 fires. Even 

though significant portions of Elko County burned ... this planning unit continues to harbor some of the largest and most 

contiguous sage-grouse populations in Nevada. This describes NDOW mainly focusing on trend leks, while BLM directs efforts 

towards checking leks associated with burned areas or that have little historic data. There appear to be omissions of sampling 

important sites like the Islands area. Are there no Trend leks in small PMUs? If not, why not? Some should be established. All 

does not appear to be well in other areas suffering significant losses in the 1999-2007 fires. Example: Gollaher:124 known leks, 

with 33 leks surveyed. Yet just 6 were active. This includes portions of the extremely degraded Salmon River allotment, Goose 

Creek, and other areas – and these lands have suffered significant losses during many wildfires. Of the 124 known leks – how 

many are urrently active? Where are active leks in relation to fires? Where are inactive leks? This is the kind of information that 

is essential for understanding the impacts of fires, or other habitat changes or developments. What has happened to trend leks 

in or near areas that have burned? What is the habitat like surrounding leks that continue to have birds, vs. leks that do not. In 

O’Neil, 43 leks were surveyed, yet only 15 were active. This area too has suffered large-scale fire. And of course – in the 

contiguous Islands PMU, no leks were surveyed. Why is no mapping or other information provided to portray what is occurring, 

and show the leks that were sampled and active vs. inactive?

NVCA Both emc0411GB

113. Agencies, could under loose methods game the system - and go out to leks with more birds when they want toand report more 

birds. We are not suggesting that NDOW has done this, because in many ways NDOW appears more reliable than several 

other state Wildlife agencies. But now that sagegrouse have become such a high stakes land conservation issue, there should be 

clear, consistent and transparent info provided annually. This would also better help to protect agency biologists from political 

pressures. What combination of leks are being visited each year? Have any trend leks been dropped over the past decade? What 

occurs if fire or other disturbance results in significant declines at those leks. Where are all trend leks? Were the leks chosen 

to be surveyed (for example in South Fork NDOW 2011 at 9) where there are 65 known leks, and in 2011 surveys were 

conducted at 19 leks, with 16 active were these selected active leks, not random samples? Which leks had the largest numbers 

NVCA Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-615

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

of birds in previous years? Which leks urveyed in each area are actually trend leks? As it stands now, besides the trend leks (and 

it must be explained if there has been a change in trend leks counted and their location over time), there is potential to select 

subsets of PMUs or other leks where numbers may be better, while reducing counts in areas where there has been the most 

loss.

114. Sage-grouse generally do not prefer to occupy habitat near high volume roads (Lyon and Anderson 2003, Connelly et al. 2004, 

Aldridge and Boyce 2007). The majority of ODOT managed transportation facilities are major highways and freeways with 

relatively high traffic noise (up to 90 decibels). Connelly et al. (2004) indicated there were no active sage-grouse leks within 2 

kilometers (km) of Interstate 80 across southern Wyoming and only 9 leks were known to occur between 2 and 4 km of I-80. 

ODOT biologist have conducted numerous environmental reviews and surveys over the years for transportation projects and 

associated material sources and have not encountered greater sage-grouse or identified areas of active use by these birds. Over 

the course of the last decade ODOT has been collecting data on collisions between wildlife and motor vehicles. Over this 

period no incident of sage-grouse killed by vehicles along ODOT transportation facilities has been recorded. ODOT believes 

that existing traffic, noise and disturbance along these transportation corridors generally precludes sage-grouse presence within 

the existing highway right-of-way and likely the areas immediately adjacent. Therefore, ODOT transportation corridors and 

their associated right-of-way should be exempt from any sage-grouse restrictions or exclusions.

OR Both emc0155GB

115. Since 2002 the Rosebud Ranch has conducted an annual Wildlife Survey in early March. In 2005 sage grouse were observed and 

4 lek sites were docurnented. These lek sites have been revisited and over the past 6 years we have observed anywhere from 

10- 56 strutting males present.

UT Both fxc0007GB

116. Tuesday, March 13, 2012 there were at least 10 sage grouse strutting on Keyton 1 lek. Cattle were also on the lek. 

Sunday, March 18, 2012 there were 12 strutting males. 

Monday, March 19, 2012 there was a golden eagle near the lek and no grouse. 

I realize this is "anecdotal" and we here on the ground are "not credible" but this is the truth.. It's not cattle, traffic or fences that 

have caused grouse problems.

WY Both cfc0032RM

117. i. Lander, WY RMP

Alternative B stipulates light livestock grazing levels in areas typically preferred by cattle, such as riparian-wetland areas, adjacent 

upland areas, and around salt and mineral supplements and water troughs and developments. Also, Alternative B prohibits salt 

or mineral supplements within 0.5 mile of riparian-wetland habitats to prevent livestock congregation at water sources.

Alternative B prohibits the placement of salt or mineral supplements within 0.6 mile of greater sage-grouse leks. All these 

provisions would protect important sage-grouse habitats (foraging areas, breeding areas, nesting areas) from livestock trampling 

and the impacts of heavy plant utilization.

WY Both emc0089RM

118. Livestock trailing that is authorized through crossing permits...will include a trailing plan that...will include specific routes and 

timeframes for trailing.(page 15 letter) This could cause undue hardship on a landowner trying to get livestock from point A to 

point B during a certain time of the year. If a route chosen by BLM is several miles around a core area and the time frame is

chosen to be weeks or months later than a landowner needs then you are forcing the landowner to pay the extra expense of 

buying trucking or not to move his livestock at an opportune time for them. BLM is not in the ranch management business and 

WY BLM emc0050RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-616 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

again I would like to refer you to the ROW-Rights-of-Way- precedent stated as #3 of my comments. If a landowner will not be 

in an area over 1 hour for disruption of a specific sage grouse area- we are not talking miles here-then the trail activity should 

not be considered a disruption. If there are concerns about the presence of leks or sage grouse nests in and area, then the BLM 

should let the landowner or lease holder know where these are and the livestock owner would be very willing to do their best 

to mitigate any disturbance in an area or to avoid leks altogether. Communication is the key here. Landowners are usually 

receptive to concerns if presented in a positive way and are willing to do what they can to cause as little harm as possible to any 

wildlife within reason. You might be surprised how well things will work out if the livestock owner is given an opportunity to 

deal with a concern over nesting or leks.

119. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach

Within core areas, stipulations on BLM, FS, Wind River Indian Reservation, and State of Wyoming lands limit the number of 

projects and the amount of allowed disturbance (no more than 5%13) allowed per square mile or 640 acres. Surface disturbance 

is prohibited within a 0.6 mile buffer around active leks (no surface occupancy - NSO), which includes roads during the

breeding, nesting and brood-rearing periods (mid-March through end of June). In addition, a March 15 to June 30 timing 

limitation stipulation is required within nesting habitat within 4 miles of leks. Main roads used to transport production and/or 

waste products must be more than 1.9 miles from the perimeter of occupied grouse leks. Other roads used for access or

maintenance must be more than 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks. Noise levels at the perimeter of a lek should not 

exceed 10 dBA above ambient noise from 6 pm to 8 am, so as not to disturb breeding activities (March 1 - May 15). Finally, 

proponents of new projects are expected to coordinate with the permitting agency and WGFD biologists to determine which 

leks need to be monitored and what data should be collected/reported. The Executive Order clearly identifies thresholds and 

outline adaptive management responses if declines in sage-grouse numbers occur14.

However, in non-core areas, the EO recommends a 2-mile seasonal buffer around occupied leks and a 0.25 mile NSO buffer 

around active leks. Research has shown that the latter stipulation is inadequate and scientifically without merit. In addition, a 

surface disturbance cap is lacking from non-core area stipulations

WY Both emc0089RM

120. Secondly, I question strongly the notion that AUM cuts on grazing allotments will have any effect. If grazing is truly a factor, why 

were sage grouse so plentiful from the 1950's through the 1970's? This is a time frame when, typically, turnout dates were

earlier and grazing allotments were not near so closely monitored, further, stubble height should not be used as a benchmark 

for sage grouse habitat, adjacent to leks. Soil type, in this instance is critical I am familiar with two leks in our area (on private 

land) that are located on white hardpan, which would never have sufficient srubble height on an exceptional year. Stubble height 

requirements, in my view, could be used in an arbitrary and capricious way to force AUM cuts, without any corresponding 

benefit to sage grouse populations.

WY Both rmc0012RM, 

rmc0022RM

121. I will also add that the'e is a sage grouse lek near Casper. Wyoming thaI has all bUI been 3bandoned by Ine ,age grouse lIeuuse 

too many people approached the le~ to look at the males mostlv when they were strutting during matong season on the sprong, 

One could "'Y that they were loved to death. However. In my humble opinion, they were overly advertised to Ihe general public

bv some folh who did not reali,e the impact that such a large number of viewers would have upofllhe population.

WY Both rmc0043RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-617

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.B

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Leks and Lekking

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

122. Case in point: Keyton 3 Lek, located in the northwest part of the 4W Ranch had always been an active lek with 20 to 30 males 

strutting annually. 314 of a mile to west of this lek on Frog Creek in a small grove of Cottonwood Trees there has been a 

historic and active Red-Tail Hawk nest. In 2007 a pair of Golden Eagles took over that nest for one breeding season. The close 

proximity of these eagles completely disrupted the lek for that year and the sage-grouse have not returned to Keyton 3 Lek 

since. Red-tails returned to their nest in 2008, but the Grouse have not. This was certainly not the fault of livestock grazing, and 

this is a clear case of predation. How many other leks are influence by the presence of Golden Eagles and other large raptors?

Then you add the Coyote and the Red Fox in this area and you have quite an arsenal of predators working on a limited prey base 

of sage-grouse and rabbits. It must also be understood that Red-tailed Hawks by nature are mousers. Small rodents are their

main prey and a sagegrouse is by far too large of a prey for them. This is probably why the Red-tail and the grouse coexisted in 

this area for so many years.

WY Both rmc0034rm

123. (5) For Sage Grouse Management Zone IV (MZ IV) BLM has developed a sage grouse habitat map delineating priority and 

general areas. It appears the map is based upon assumptions not entirely supported by current literature fllld also, the map is not 

based upon the most current lek infonnation. The BLM Map relied upon the following to designate priority areas: Active LeksBLM defined as 2 or more males occupying a lck One year out of the past 5 years. The most recent literature defines an active 

lek as 2 Or more males occupying a lek nvo years out of the past 5 years; 13uffers~ ELM bllffered their leks 6.4-8.2 km to create 

the area designated as priority habitat Analysis of current literature suggests 6.1 km as a mOre appropriate buffer. The habitat

maps relied upon lek counts from 2005-201 O. These priority/general habitat maps must be updated anllHally to reflect current 

year lek data. The maps must also incorporate a vegetation layer and be updated annually to account for vegetation changes.

WY Both FXC0011GB

124. Holloran (2005) found that well densities greater than one well per 699 acres were correlated with lek declines. Doherty et al. 

(2010) did a statewide analysis in Wyoming and found that well densities greater than 1 well per square mile were correlated 

with sage grouse declines. Modeling by Taylor et al. (2012) determined that drilling a previously undeveloped landscape to a 

density of 4 to 8 wells per square mile would be predicted to cut sage grouse populations in half. Well densities can also interact 

with West Nile virus to accelerate sage grouse declines. Taylor et al. (2010) modeled sage grouse population dynamics and 

determined that increasing well densities from current levels (almost none) to 160-acre spacing in the Carter unit could result 

in a 97% decline of sage grouse populations and the loss of all leks with more than 10 males in the face of a West Nile virus 

outbreak. Notably, the increase of well density to 640 acre spacing in this area would be predicted to decrease populations by 

11 percent in the absence of West Nile virus, so allowing well densities at 640-acre spacing is not harmless to sage grouse 

populations (id.). Similarly Taylor et al. (2012) found that as well densities increase to 8 wells per square mile in the Powder 

River Basin of Wyoming, a single West Nile virus outbreak is likely to reduce active sage grouse leks from 360 to 6. Importantly, 

Schrag et al. (2011) examined climate models and predicted increased risk of major West Nile outbreaks over current risk 

levels. These observations support the “no future leasing” approach to sage grouse Priority Habitats.

WY Both emc0343GB

125. The situation gets even dicier in Wyoming where various entities especially in areas of checkerboard or other mixed land 

ownership, conducts lek counts under various partnership or other efforts. How much effort is put into lek counts (are many 

efforts being made to repeatedly visit leks with more birds and obtain the highest possible counts?), are leks being 

cherry-picked, and how is this all being vetted by the Wyoming agency?

WY Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-618 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.C

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and Reproduction

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. MWGA's membership recognizes that fragmentation or loss of ground cover may increase the chances of sage grouse 

mortality. However, BLM officials must acknowledge that predators, both large and small, are having a devastating impact 

upon Sage Grouse populations. As such, any EIS or SEIS alternative analyzed should contain specific management actions that 

address and minimize this threat, working in conjunction with any other management actions proposed.

All Both rmc0021GB

2. I BELEVE I SAW WHERE OREGON DID A STUDY, THEY MADE NEST AN FOUND THAT CROWS WAS EATING THE 

EGGS IN THE NEST THAT THE DEPT. PUT OUT.

All Both emc0048GB

3. Research has found that collisions (mainly with fences) account for a significant source of mortality in prairie and shrubland 

grouse species. This mortality occurs primarily when hens are searching for suitable nest sites and laying and incubating eggs. 

Loss of hens at this time of year may impact overall population numbers more than would be expected at other times of the 

year. Low-cost methods to increase the visibility of fences have been developed as one way to reduce adult mortality and 

improve nesting and brood-rearing success.

All Both emc0074GB

4. There is strong evidence from the scientific literature to support the fact that surface-disturbing energy or mineral 

development within sage-grouse habitats is not consistent with a goal to maintain or increase populations or distribution. 

None of the published science describes a positive influence of this type of development on sage-grouse populations or their 

habitats. Breeding populations are reduced severely at well pad densities commonly permitted by the BLM. The magnitude of 

losses varies from one field to another, but findings suggest that impacts are universally negative and typically severe.

All Both emc0074GB

5. Let's take a real look at what westerners want, an AGGRESSIVE BREEDING PROGRAM to augment and enhance wild 

populations of sage grouse. This program should be run under the guidance of individual state fish and game personnel, as they 

know the habitat and land the best, as well as having the expertise to collect donor birds for breeding and egg collection. Local 

oversight would also continue the working relationship they have with people in each community.

All Both rmc0047GB

6. The sage grouse is the perfect candidate for a multi state breeding program due to its large area of habitation, the diversity of 

the many local populations, and the natural hardiness of the bird. Look at the success we have had in reintroducing the 

Columbia Sharp Tail grouse, as well as the millions of non native birds, which share habitat in sage brush country, such as

pheasants, chukars, and hungarian partridge. (none of these birds, which are all doing so well, are in their natural habitats here 

in the U.S.)

All Both rmc0047GB

7. Bird breeders with facilities, as well as years of experience, could be offered the opportunity to bid on raising the grouse with 

supervision and standards provided from state game and fish personnel. This would provide direct and indirect jobs in the 

private sector, and an opportunity for the public and state personnel to work together toward a common goal. This approach 

will create many numerous and scattered sites which will help to increase the variety of the genetics in each breeding site. 

This type of program would provide the needed numbers of birds at a cost efficiency, per animal released, not seen in any 

other listed species program to date. A million dollars would produce a lot of birds, but the economic cost of a "habitat 

protection only" approach will not only cost the public hundred of millions of dollars directly and indirectly but will produce 

less predictable and controllable bird numbers.

All Both rmc0047GB

8. As a side bar, l think a large portion of the funding needed would come from the private sector if they were assured that the

money would go toward the production of birds, thus eliminating the need to list the sage grouse under the ESA, something 

both sides should approve of. I'm sure energy concerns, (both hydrocarbon and green renewable energy companies) as well 

All Both rmc0047GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-619

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.C

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and Reproduction

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

as agricultural entities and the general public would find that supporting the operation from their pockets, preferable to the 

consequences and costs that would come with a full endangered listing of the sage grouse. I know the my family and I would 

support this approach with personal donations. This option would also have the least impact on people's lives, resources, and 

needed energy production.

9. WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO LOSE? We can always go back to the inefficient and destructive approaches we have used in the 

past and maybe our great grandchildren might notice more grouse. Instead, let's use modern science and technology, coupled 

with centuries old knowledge in bird breeding, to create and release tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of new 

birds into our sage lands within the next four to five years (not decades). Impossible, not if we use the public's drive and 

ingenuity to resolve this problem. It was public concern and private action that let to our greatest endangered species 

recovery (before the ESA) the iconic American Buffalo.

All Both rmc0047GB

10. Putting this breeding program on the table with all the other options that have been proposed only makes good sense, and 

assures the public that all efforts are being made in the best interest of all. This breeding option will bring to light whether the 

ESA is being used for a political agenda, public control, or the true goal of increasing bird numbers. Let's work creatively to 

keep the sage grouse from becoming the western states spotted owl.

All Both rmc0047GB

11. I would like to make the comment that a key component to sage grouse management will be management of ravens. Ravens 

are proven to eat sage grouse eggs and chicks. We cannot expect to be able to enhance any opportunity to protect sage 

grouse without addressing this significant factor. We can change everything else in the system like removing grazing, providing 

waters, etc., but if we do not address the fact that ravens are unmanaged they will continue to be affected. We must manage 

ravens to protect sage grouse.

All Both emc0059GB

12. Most sage grouse nests occur under sagebrush, but sage grouse will nest under other plant species. However, grouse nesting 

under sagebrush experience greater nest success (53%) than those nesting under other plant species (22%). Grass height and 

cover also are important components of sage grouse nest sites (Table 1). Grass associated with nest sites and with the stand 

of vegetation containing the nest was taller and denser than grass at random sites Grass height at nests under non-sagebrush 

plants was greater than that associated with nests under sagebrush, further suggesting that grass height is an important habitat 

component for nesting sage grouse.

All Both emc0057GB

13. If the problem is we're losing the overall number of Sage Grouse, has anyone suggested raising Sage Grouse and releasing 

them back in to the environment? We could actually create jobs and businesses for the younger generation, school programs, 

clubs, etc., where thru the raising of more birds and over populating the environment, we could create greater hunting 

environments which through additional hunting licenses/tags would pay for the raising and release of sage grouse, as well as 

improving their habitat. This works for chukar and pheasants, why not for sage grouse. The program would be self-sustaining 

and ensure the survival of the species.

All Both emc0229GB

14. better use of money would be to actually improve the range where the birds live. But there will be NO ANSWERS OR 

IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR HABITAT UNTIL THE PREDATORS ARE CONTROLLED. The wolves, the coyotes and crows 

or ravens are devastating to success of these ground nesting birds. It is sickening to watch a crow or coyote steal the eggs 

while the mother bird chirps her complaint, but to no avail. The predator always wins.

All Both emc0279GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-620 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.C

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and Reproduction

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

15. With regards to roads around both priority and general Greater Sage Grouse habitats, no new roads or ROW’s should be 

allowed or granted within a 5.5 mile radius of a lek site. With regards to priority habitats, the BLM should further include 

mandatory limited and or no usage of such roads that pass within a 5.5 mile radius of a lek site during mating and hatching 

seasons.

All BLM emc0074RM

16. We have successfully implemented cool season burns, chemical, mechanical treatments to thin brush and release herbaceous 

vegetation (Danvir 2005). The overall effect is early seral openings in a sagebrush sea. Hunnicutt 1992 clearly showed that 

hens selected nest sites in homogeneous sagebrush patches at least 300m in diameter for nesting, but immediately moved 

broods to highly heterogeneous areas having an interspersion of sagebrush cover and grass-forb dominated feeding areas. 

Pronghorn populations (Aoude and Danvir 2002) showed similar production and population increases.

All Both emc0281GB

17. Sage-grouse are perhaps most vulnerable to predators during nesting, when they remain on the ground to protect their 

nests. Nests with greater grass and forb cover, however, show a decrease in predation rates. Nesting success is positively 

correlated with the presence of big sagebrush and sufficient grass and forb cover, and thus nesting success is greater in 

unaltered habitats versus altered habitats. Generally, studies have found that low nest success due to predation is 

ultimately related to poor nesting habitat.

All Both emc0276GB

18. We do not advise large prescribed fire in GSG or big game winter ranges in Wyoming big sagebrush, particularly at low 

elevations and precipitation (less than 10 inches annual precipitation). However, our observations have consistently shown 

that smaller (25-200Ha) openings created in large (>500Ha) expanses of mountain and Basin big sagebrush in excess of 25% 

canopy coverage and above 2000m in elevation are used as brood habitat by GSG, and (based on increased lek attendance, lek 

persistence, and new lek development) can increase GSG populations. We have successfully implemented cool season burns, 

chemical, mechanical treatments to thin brush and release herbaceous vegetation (Oanvir 2005). The overall effect is early 

seral openings in a sagebrush sea. Hunnicutt 1992 clearly showed that hens selected nest sites in homogeneous sagebrush 

patches at least 300m in diameter for nesting, but immediately moved broods to highly heterogeneous areas having an 

interspersion of sagebrush cover and grass-forb dominated feeding areas. Pronghorn populations (Aoude and Oanvir 2002) 

showed similar production and population increases.

All Both emc0303GB

19. 25) Published guidelines for sage grou.se nesting habitat are based on studies that described 'Vegetation at nest sites after 

hatching. It is inappropliate to use these post-hatch guidelines to evaluate pre-laying conditions.

All BLM fxc0011gb

20. At minimum, the NEPA analysis should address the following: • Providing NSO buffers of at least 2 miles and up to 4 miles 

inside core areas to protect breeding and nesting habitats from impacts.

All Both emc0343GB

21. Another consideration is that hatchling Sage‐Grouse may be being affected by toxins on the foliage and insects they eat, 

resulting in developmental malformations consistent with thyroid hormone disruption. Photographs of adult Greater 

Sage‐Grouse with underdeveloped upper bills indicate that they are being affected by thyroid hormone disruption during 

development in the same way as are the wild ruminants that live in the same area. See the study "Observations of 

Brachygnathia Superior In Wild Ruminants in Western Montana, USA." by Hoy, et. Al. It is free on Google. Look it up ‐ if the 

toxins falling on the foliage can cause so much damage to fetal ruminants, it certainly can affect developing Sage Grouse chicks. 

Without considering this serious problem, we will not be able to insure the survival of Sage‐Grouse or other declining bird 

species.

All Both fla0071gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-621

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.C

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and Reproduction

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

22. Sage-grouse Nesting and Early Brood-Rearing Habitats ··- There is potential nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 8 

km of known lek as identified through the Colorado Vegetation Classification Project data. CDOW documented sage-grouse 

use of all parcels, supporting the conclusion that suitable habitat exists in the parcels. Sagebrush dominant habitats within 5.5 

km of a lek have a higher probability of use for nesting and early brood-rearing. Female sage-grouse avoid nesting within 1 km 

of oil and gas infrastructure and have a lower annual survival. Chick survival decreases within l km of visible wells. Id. at 2.

CO BLM emc0057RM

23. The NPSGWG also requests that the EIS consider the variability in BLM Field Offices and how they have managed grazing in 

the past. The EIS should not be a "one-size-fits-all" approach. As mentioned above, the Kremmling Field Office has been 

extremely proactive in terms of grazing management. Only one allotment in last five years has not met minimum land health 

standards.

BLM, HPP, and CPW have implemented a seeding project and grazing deferment in the allotment to bring it back to minimum 

standards. Grazing management in North Park is working. In 2010, the CPW conducted over 100 vegetation measurements 

at sage-grouse nest and female late-summer use sites. Vegetation measurements indicate that grazing management on BLM 

and private land is meeting the structural guidelines outlined in the Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (2008). 

CPW also documented good nesting success in 2010 with 47% of nests hatching at least one egg and better nest success in 

2011 with 64% of nests hatching. North Park probably has the most stable greater sage-grouse population in Colorado and 

we believe this is a result of the good grazing management in Jackson County.

CO BLM emc0060RM

24. According to the National Technical Team, the Bureau of Land Management has committed to a new paradigm in managing 

the sagebrush landscape. The BLM’s goal is to "maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by 

conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in cooperation with other 

conservation partners." Furthermore, the "adequacy of management adjustments will be measured by science-based 

effectiveness monitoring of the biological response of sagebrush landscapes and sage-grouse populations" (BLM Sage-grouse 

National Technical Team, 2011).

What will this new management paradigm look like? I trust that BLM will clearly and openly articulate its new management 

goals for the sagebrush steppe in both the EIS and revised resource management plans. BLM cannot pretend to restore the 

sagebrush steppe and improve sage-grouse habitat while continuing to allow oil and gas development and livestock grazing at 

the current ecologically unsustainable levels. Future management of sage-grouse habitat on the sagebrush steppe must be 

science-based and will have to include 1) an honest recognition of the existing ecological condition relative to the potential 

natural plant community, 2) serious consideration of land-use changes that will benefit sage-grouse habitat, 3) commitment to 

ecological restoration over millions of acres, 4) consideration for special area designations that will benefit sage-grouse, and 

5) an effective monitoring strategy and rigorous monitoring protocols.

CO BLM emc0066RM

25. For purposes of this discussion, I assume that a reference state is composed of a set of reference conditions in support of 

biological integrity (Stoddard et al., 2006). Furthermore, the set of reference conditions would be closely related to, and 

defined specifically in terms of, high-quality habitat for all life stages of a particular sage-grouse population. Possible categories 

of reference conditions might include sagebrush canopy density, plant species richness, forb density and diversity, vegetation 

stubble height, herbaceous ground cover, and insect densities. Such reference conditions must be used to both 1) plan habitat 

CO BLM emc0066RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-622 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.C

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and Reproduction

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

restoration efforts and 2) conduct project effectiveness monitoring.

26. There must be consensus (federal, state, environmental organizations) on reference conditions for sage-grouse habitat, 

especially priority habitat. The choice of reference conditions is critical. As the BLM plans for sage-grouse habitat restoration, 

there will be a need for well-documented reference conditions and geo-referenced long-term reference sites that contain 

one or more reference conditions. The sagebrush steppe is far below its ecological potential because of past land uses. In 

particular, riparian and lentic wetlands critical for late brood-rearing habitat are severely degraded throughout the sagebrush 

steppe. This will make it difficult, but not impossible, to find suitable reference sites. However, Shinneman et al. (2008) found 

suitable reference areas in western Colorado. I have not had any difficulty in finding suitable upland reference sites in the 

sagebrush steppe of south-central Wyoming.

CO BLM emc0066RM

27. The methods used to measure and describe the reference state can have a profound effect on the final management or 

restoration benchmarks chosen. The most common approach for estimating a reference state is to quantify the biological 

condition at a set of sites that are either minimally or least disturbed by human activity (Stoddard et al., 2006). This works 

only if the specific reference condition that the reference sites represent is clearly defined. Stoddard et al. (2006) show that 

the concept of reference condition may be defined along a gradient of biological condition. Minimally-disturbed sites in the 

sagebrush steppe are those showing an absence of significant human disturbances and would represent the best 

approximation of biotic integrity. Least-disturbed sites, defined by Stoddard et al. (2006) as having the "best available physical, 

chemical, and biological habitat conditions given today’s state of the landscape" might also provide suitable reference 

conditions. In the final analysis, however, reference conditions and reference sites chosen for sage-grouse conservation 

efforts must reflect the specific habitat needs of a long-term sustainable sage-grouse population.

CO BLM emc0066RM

28. It may be necessary for the BLM to use special area designations, such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

or Research Natural Areas (RNAs), to protect reference sites over the long term.

CO BLM emc0066RM

29. Sage-grouse conservation guidance from BLM should reflect the most current science on sagegrouse movement and 

migrations. Recent studies of nest-site selection and nest success have made clear that nest distributions are spatially related 

to lek locations (Holloran and Anderson 2005, Aldridge and Boyce 2007, Doherty et al. 2010a). Holloran and Anderson 

(2005) documented 64% of nests occurred within 3.1 miles of leks, 80% of nests occurred within 5 miles of leks, and 20% of 

nests occurred at distances greater than 5 miles from leks; nest success also was greater the farther a nest occurred from a 

lek, indicating a disproportionate potential importance of these more distant nests for population recruitment. Based on their 

results, Holloran and Anderson (2005) concluded that to protect and maintain sage-grouse populations, land managers 

should minimize or halt actions that reduce suitability of nesting habitats within 3.1 miles of a lek.

East Both emc0089RM

30. The Nevada Wilderness Project respectfully requests that you address the impacts to sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat 

caused by feral horses, including removal of vegetational cover necessary for nesting and brood-rearing, changes to 

vegetational composition that results from feral horse use, horse impacts to springs and other important free water sources 

utilized by sage-grouse, possible disturbance caused by feral horses during the nesting period, infrastructure used to mitigate 

horse impacts (e.g., fences) and how it may negatively affect sage-grouse, any connection to West Nile Virus as that disease 

is recognized as affecting both horses and sage-grouse, and the potential for feral horse management actions to negatively 

NVCA Both emc0243GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-623

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.C

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and Reproduction

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

affect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.

31. Does Nevada consider all nesting habitat to be essential/irreplaceable? Or is som distance from leks being used? If so, 

significant expansion of irreplaceable habitat in NDOW mapping should occur to include all nesting habitat given the grazing, 

mining, and increasing energy threats birds are under.

NVCA Both emc0411GB

32. The main problem that exists locally is the increased presence of predators. Crows, Ravens, Eagles, Hawks, Foxes, Coyotes, 

Raccoons, Skunks, etc. are everywhere nowadays and increasing In numbers each year. I have no doubt that they take a very 

large toll on Sage Grouse eggs and nests, as well as other upland animals.

UT Both emc0405GB

33. If road closures for a time period during the year is considered then the lease holder and local landowners must be allowed 

to travel the areas roads as needed for maintenance and livestock needs. Their travel cannot be limited to certain times of the 

year if they have ranching requirements that must be met. The same must be taken into consideration for trailing, branding, 

docking, feeding, calving and lambing of livestock, as well as irrigation and summer hay cutting. These ranching activities all 

occur with regularity within the time frame of the courting and nesting of the sage grouse (March 1-June 30) The ability of the 

landowner and lease holder to adequately calve or lamb and take care of their livestock must be placed in the forefront as 

well. It is possible to take into the consideration the management and conservation of a species without causing undue 

hardship on landowners living in the area. Landowners are limited by area landscapes and habitats as well when it comes to 

adequately protecting newborn livestock. Their livestock management plans are made well in advance each year and for the 

most part cannot be easily changed. Corrals, barns and other facilities needed for livestock cannot be transported to far away 

pastures for shelter and convenience. Some pastures are used at the same time each year for the specific reason that they will 

help provide nourishment and shelter to a landowner’s livestock from storms during the spring of the year.

WY Both emc0050RM

34. Treatment of weeds and pests must remain a source of available management. Neither treatment usually occurs during 

courting or nesting time frames. These management tools must not be removed due to disturbance concerns. After the 

nesting period any sage grouse flushed while doing treatments will return as the treatment activity does not cause a major 

disturbance and is not a continual ongoing disruption to the daily lives of the sage grouse.

WY Both emc0050RM

35. Disturbance issues do not carry over to private land use. If private land is within 2 miles of known nesting sites a letter to the 

landowner that there is a chance of nesting sage grouse within a distance upon their private lands might prompt the 

landowner to change the place or day that a planned activity on their lands will occur. Private lands are not controlled by 

federal agencies but most landowners do protect and conserve species of wildlife upon their private lands. The landowners 

usually know what exists on their land but a short letter describing the concerns across the fence could help educate the 

landowner or lease holder as to any actions they might take to alleviate some nesting or courting disturbances.

WY Both emc0050RM

36. Livestock trailing that is authorized through crossing permits...will include a trailing plan that...will include specific routes and 

timeframes for trailing.(page 15 letter) This could cause undue hardship on a landowner trying to get livestock from point A 

to point B during a certain time of the year. If a route chosen by BLM is several miles around a core area and the time frame

is chosen to be weeks or months later than a landowner needs then you are forcing the landowner to pay the extra expense 

of buying trucking or not to move his livestock at an opportune time for them. BLM is not in the ranch management business 

and again I would like to refer you to the ROW-Rights-of-Way- precedent stated as #3 of my comments. If a landowner will 

WY BLM emc0050RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-624 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.C

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Breeding, Nesting, and Reproduction

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

not be in an area over 1 hour for disruption of a specific sage grouse area- we are not talking miles here-then the trail activity 

should not be considered a disruption. If there are concerns about the presence of leks or sage grouse nests in and area, then 

the BLM should let the landowner or lease holder know where these are and the livestock owner would be very willing to do 

their best to mitigate any disturbance in an area or to avoid leks altogether. Communication is the key here. Landowners are 

usually receptive to concerns if presented in a positive way and are willing to do what they can to cause as little harm as 

possible to any wildlife within reason. You might be surprised how well things will work out if the livestock owner is given an 

opportunity to deal with a concern over nesting or leks.
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-625

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.D

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Winter Range

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. The practice of erecting artificial hawk nests or raptor perches that have taken place in some of the winter grounds of the 

sage grouse can't be good for the grouse as it enables their natural enemies (eagles) a perfect opportunity to infiltrate the

wintering ground.

All Both emc0406GB

2. The RMP should include plans for a study of how roads impact winter forage opportunities for sage grouse. Specifically: Why 

do grouse like to congregate on gravel roads, and how would road closures negatively impact the species?

All Both emc0013RM

3. We do not advise large prescribed fire in GSG or big game winter ranges in Wyoming big sagebrush, particularly at low 

elevations and precipitation (less than 10 inches annual precipitation)

All Both emc0281GB

4. We agree that poorly designed and placed fences kill wildlife and disrupt seasonal movements and migrations. All fences 

within 1.25 miles of known leks, or in heavily used winter concentration areas of GSG should be periodically monitored for 

signs of GSG collisions, and if so modified or visibly marked to reduce mortality.

All Both emc0281GB

5. The practice of erecting artificial hawk nests or raptor perches that have taken place in some of the winter grounds of the 

sage grouse can’t be good for the grouse as it enables their natural enemies (eagles) a perfect opportunity to infiltrate the 

wintering ground.

All Both emc0295GB

6. In winter, sage grouse select large expanses of sagebrush with gentle topography and avoided conifer, riparian, and energy 

development (Doherty 2008). Well density had an additional effect in this study (id.). Sage grouse were 30% more likely to 

use winter habitat if CBM development was not present (id.). There was a landscape-scale effect of habitat selection, with 

areas with greater sagebrush at a 4 km2 scale receiving greater winter use (id.). Carpenter et al. (2010) found a similar 

relationship in Alberta, and found that grouse avoided oil and gas wells by 1.9 km and also showed some avoidance of jeep 

trails. Bruce et al. (2011) found that sage grouse moved widely across winter habitats, using an area of 1,480 km2, and 

recommended setting aside large reserves for winter habitats. According to Doherty (2008:22), “Identifying and setting aside 

areas of undeveloped, high-quality habitat within the project area should be top priority.” Doherty (2008:22) asserted, “My 

spatially explicit winter habitat model can be used to identify areas in the PRB that provide the best remaining habitat for 

sage-grouse in winter.” BLM should apply this model to the Powder River Basin and place areas predicted to be the best 

remaining sage grouse winter habitat off-limits to future oil and gas leasing, in addition to placing strong restrictions on the 

level of development that is allowed on existing leases. Similar protocols should be developed and followed throughout the 

remainder of the sage grouse range.

All Both emc0343GB

7. There is also inadequate understanding of winter habitats and nesting habitats more distant from clusters of leks. Sage-grouse 

may use low elevation sagebrush completely left out of models in hard winters - and loss of this habitat may have serious 

impacts to populations. For example, NDOW in the Nevada sage Grouse Plan in (2004) stated: Information on 

winter habitats in Nevada and California are based on limited data. In general, winter movements are related to severity of 

winter weather, topography, and vegetative cover (Beck 1977). Sagebrush canopy at sage-grouse winter use sites can be 

highly variable (Patterson 1952, Eng and Schladweiler 1972, Wallestad et al. 1975, Beck 1977, Robertson 1991). However, 

sage-grouse habitats must provide adequate amounts of sagebrush because their winter diet consists almost exclusively of 

sagebrush. It is crucial that sagebrush be exposed at least 10 to 12 inches above snow level as this provides both food and 

cover for wintering sage-grouse (Barrington and Back 1984, Hupp and Braun 1989). During periods of heavy snowfall 

accumulation that essentially blanket an area, sage-grouse may move to canyon bottoms or lower elevation sagebrush flats or 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-626 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.D

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Winter Range

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

benches associated with mountain ranges within Nevada to access available sagebrush. During the winter, it is not uncommon 

to find sage grouse on wind-swept ridges and slopes with south facing exposures. This highlights the very significant risk 

of BLM discarding vast areas of sage-grouse habitats under the "general" category (or not even mapping previously identified 

habitat at all as occurs in areas of Idaho)- while only trying to make some effort at stopping some new habitat destruction and 

disturbance in the Core/Priority areas.

8. In hard winters, remnant areas of sagebrush in low elevation habitats with sufficiently dense sagebrush stands above the snow 

may be used. Studies that fail to track bird use over considerable periods may not detect use during such critical crunch times. 

If one part of the suite of habitats in the sagebrush andscape required by sage-grouse is missing, there may be adverse and dire 

effects to the population. These winter habitats are the very same areas that BLM routinely sacrifices to all manner of 

intensive grazing, OHV, or other abuses and which the current Models also sacrifice.

All Both emc0411GB

9. The USFWS (no date) conducted a literature review through 2010 and found that recommended buffer distances for sage 

grouse were generally 3.1 to 4 miles and beyond. We endorse the recommendations of USFWS (2003) and Mannville (2004) 

that wind power facilities be sited at least five miles from active sage grouse leks, regardless of whether or not they occur

within Priority Habitats. Similarly, lands identified as sage grouse winter habitat should similarly be avoided by a distance of 

not less than three miles.

All Both emc0343GB

10. At minimum, the NEPA analysis should address the following: • Evaluating winter habitat and placing key wintering areas 

with an adequate buffer (at least 2 miles) off-limits to industrial activity.

All Both emc0343GB

11. Pages 16 and 17 in the NTT report suggest that BLM only allow treatments that conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse 

habitat. An analysis should be conducted to evaluate the need for age-class diversity in sagebrush communities. We also 

request that the BLM consider allowing other treatments that are designed to achieve alternative objectives as long as they 

do not negatively impact sagegrouse habitat. Page 26 recommends that fuels management allow no treatments in winter 

range. Recommending no treatments in winter range is not realistic for PPH in the North Park basin

CO BLM emc0060RM

12. CPW believes the following range-wide threats pose the greatest risk to greater sage-grouse populations and their habitats 

(not in order of risk):

A principal feature of landscape-scale wildfires in sagebrush habitat includes an extremeIy long time frame (25-120 years, 

depending on habitat type) before the habitat again has the vegetation structure necessary to support nesting and

wintering sage-grouse.

CO Both emc0072RM

13. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach

Importantly, Wyoming’s designated core areas include connectivity areas, breeding areas, and late brood-rearing habitat (all 

of which are stressed by the NTT). The Core Area Strategy also recognized the importance of winter concentration areas. 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 states, "While the bulk of winter habitat necessary to support core sage-grouse 

populations likely occurs inside Core Population Areas, seasonal stipulations (December 1 to March 14) should be

considered in locations outside Core Population Areas where they have been identified as winter concentration areas 

necessary for supporting biologically significant numbers of sage-grouse nesting in Core Population Areas. All efforts should 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-627

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.D

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Winter Range

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

he made to minimize disturbance to mature sagebrush cover in identified winter concentration areas."

14. Where are the Sage-grouse (habitat & location) delinated on the map for the Tex Creek WMA? The BOR/IDFG conducted 

the lek surveys as well as winter in 2008 and there are a lot of birds using the area year round. This is primary wintering 

habitat!

IDMT Both cfc0005GB

15. iii. Strong components of Wyoming’s approach

Importantly, Wyoming’s designated core areas include connectivity areas, breeding areas, and late brood-rearing habitat (all 

of which are stressed by the NTT). The Core Area Strategy also recognized the importance of winter concentration areas. 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 states, "While the bulk of winter habitat necessary to support core sage-grouse 

populations likely occurs inside Core Population Areas, seasonal stipulations (December 1 to March 14) should be

considered in locations outside Core Population Areas where they have been identified as winter concentration areas 

necessary for supporting biologically significant numbers of sage-grouse nesting in Core Population Areas. All efforts should 

he made to minimize disturbance to mature sagebrush cover in identified winter concentration areas."

WY Both emc0089RM

16. BLM should expand core area boundaries and include larger buffers between sage grouse habitat and surface activity to 

protect sage grouse nesting and winter habitat. BLM policies to protect sage grouse habitat will be more successful if sage 

grouse core areas are expanded and buffered and if BLM implements policies that also protect sage grouse winter

habitat. In support of the need to expand core area boundaries and protect sage grouse habitat see the attached declaration 

of former BLM wildlife biologist Larry Gerard. The experience and knowledge of Mr. Gerard and other BLM biologists should 

not be ignored. BLM must stop bowing to industry and political pressure, as occurred in the Powder River Basin, and step up 

to the plate to take the obvious and necessary actions to stop permitting mineral development in sage brush habitat.

WY BLM emc0129RM

17. Availability of winter habitat is also a major concern for this (Powder River Basin) population. According to Naugle et al. 

(2006:2), “Expansion of CBNG development threatens to extirpate birds from otherwise suitable habitats and further 

isolate remaining populations. Risk of complete loss of this population is high if plans proceed to develop the entire northern 

study area because their non-migratory status and behavioral avoidance of CBNG will leave these birds with no other 

options.”

WY Both emc0343GB

18. Doherty et al. (2008) found that sage grouse in the Powder River Basin selected sagebrush stands that were large and 

unfragmented by development, on gentle topography. Additionally, sage grouse use stands of taller sagebrush, as sagebrush 

that protrudes above the snow is the key winter food source. Such stands of taller sagebrush are often viewed as “decadent” 

by range managers and targeted for sagebrush “control” projects. Doherty et al. (2008) concluded, “As remaining winter 

habitats are developed, and sage-grouse can no longer avoid CBNG, it is unclear whether birds will be able to adapt to a 

disturbance of this magnitude.”

WY Both emc0343GB

19. In winter, sage grouse select large expanses of sagebrush with gentle topography and avoided conifer, riparian, and energy 

development (Doherty 2008). Well density had an additional effect in this study (id.). Sage grouse were 30% more likely to 

use winter habitat if CBM development was not present (id.). There was a landscape-scale effect of habitat selection, with 

areas with greater sagebrush at a 4 km2 scale receiving greater winter use (id.). Carpenter et al. (2010) found a similar 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-628 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.D

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Winter Range

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

relationship in Alberta, and found that grouse avoided oil and gas wells by 1.9 km and also showed some avoidance of jeep 

trails. Bruce et al. (2011) found that sage grouse moved widely across winter habitats, using an area of 1,480 km2, and 

recommended setting aside large reserves for winter habitats. According to Doherty (2008:22), “Identifying and setting aside 

areas of undeveloped, high-quality habitat within the project area should be top priority.” Doherty (2008:22) asserted, “My 

spatially explicit winter habitat model can be used to identify areas in the PRB that provide the best remaining habitat for 

sage-grouse in winter.” BLM should apply this model to the Powder River Basin and place areas predicted to be the best 

remaining sage grouse winter habitat off-limits to future oil and gas leasing, in addition to placing strong restrictions on the 

level of development that is allowed on existing leases. Similar protocols should be developed and followed throughout the 

remainder of the sage grouse range.
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-629

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.E

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. Dear Sir or Mam; What if we could rasie the grouse and release them free I would love to raise them on my own land to free 

roam with no hunting but to let them roam free and build up the population as right now we have quail running around here. 

I already have a brooder to raise chicks and stuff all we would need is some chicks. Please think about it and let me 

know...Don Mooney

All Both emc0010GB

2. Livestock grazing is compatible with sage-grouse where the habitat characteristics needed for breeding and wintering can be 

consistently maintained. It is paramount that only light grazing be permitted on important sage grouse wintering areas, 

because during winter, sage grouse often use tall, dense stands of sagebrush which remain relatively exposed through deep 

snow. Light grazing produces mosaics in vegetation and an increase in herbage production that are favorable for Sage-Grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing habitat. Riparian areas and wet meadows used for brood rearing are especially sensitive to grazing 

by livestock. 

Protecting sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat from livestock use also encourages climax vegetative conditions. If 

this is not feasible, limit grazing to the month of July. Defer grazing until after the peak of the growing season with the intent 

of providing herbaceous cover and forage for the majority of the nesting, hatching, and early brood-rearing. Cessation of 

grazing by 1 August is designed to minimize livestock concentrations in wet meadows and riparian areas with open water by 

avoiding "hot season" use and to allow a 30-day regrowth period before the first killing frost. Additionally, late summer-early 

fall regrowth is important for carbohydrate storage in roots and stem bases of cool season grasses. This enhances plant vigor

while allowing residual vegetation to accumulate cover for nesting and early brood-rearing the following spring.

All Both rmc0024GB

3. It has also been shown that increased use of meadows and riparian areas in mid-to late summer is common as herbaceous 

vegetation in upland habitat becomes desiccated. Potential for competition with Sage-Grouse young may be in proportion to 

the extent to which cattle select mesic/moist sites that are preferred foraging areas. Young birds seek out insects and 

succulent forbs in these habitats. Although the adult diet switches to forbs and insects in addition to sagebrush, developing 

young depend heavily upon insects for food. These habitats are critical brood-rearing and summer use areas in regions with 

low annual rainfall and during drought years.

All Both rmc0024GB

4. Also, during times of drought, cattle are attracted to moist areas. Failure to adequately manage for these periods may result 

in greater impact in the form of reduced vegetative cover. Brood-rearing habitats for sage-grouse are typically mosaics of 

upland sagebrush and other habitats (e.g., wet meadows, riparian areas) that together provide abundant insects and forbs for 

hens and chicks. Although the adult diet switches to forbs and insects in addition to sagebrush, developing young depend 

heavily upon insects for food.

All Both rmc0024GB

5. A national team of sage grouse experts recommended restoration of sage grouse priority areas, where sage grouse breed and 

rear their broods, that no new oil and gas permits be issued in core sage grouse areas until a long term plan is developed and 

that BLM land managers modify or maintain grazing strategies to meet sage grouse habitat requirements. Yet this guidance is 

apparently missing so far from the BLM's new plan. We infer this from others' posted comments as we could not find the new 

BLM plan on the BLM website.

All Both rmc0039GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-630 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.E

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Brood Rearing

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

6. Another requirement may be to move the cattle into that pasture before the sage grouse start to nest. That way the 

introduction of cattle to the pasture wouldn't disturb nesting birds, but the birds could choose not to nest in that pasture if 

the cattle were bothering them

All Both emc0172GB

7. By consuming or trampling native grasses, livestock may reduce canopy cover considered necessary for successful nesting and 

brood-rearing of sage-grouse. Similarly, several authors have noted that livestock grazing can reduce the suitability of habitat 

for breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing. If breeding is successful, livestock has the potential to trample nests, thus negatively 

affecting sage-grouse populations. Although the effect of trampling at a population level is unknown, outright nest destruction 

has been documented and the presence of livestock can cause sage-grouse to abandon their nests, exposing eggs to an 

increased risk of predation.

All Both emc0276GB

8. How does this benefit Sage Grouse? Small chicks need a succulent understory that contains lots of juicy bugs for survival. 

When first hatched they probably can't even reach Sage Brush leaves. With cattle on each area for only about two weeks out 

of the entire year it leaves the rest to the birds and other wildlife. As the cattle are moved any rain that falls during the 

summer benefits regrowth as cattle are not there to eat off the young shoots. The clue to rotation grazing is to not return to 

the same pasture until the grass has recovered. In our arid climate we do not return to regraze an area in the same year thus 

leaving a great deal of cover. We also rotate the cattle through the pastures in a different sequence each year. This allows 

plants to flower and seed undisturbed every few years no matter what time of the summer they bloom.

All Both rmc0003RM

9. 24) Published sage grouse habitat guidelines are based on studies of the small fractions of landscapes that ~age grome select 

for nesting arld brood rearing. It is inappropriate to extrapolate J1"ODl these very small areas to entire landscapes.

All BLM fxc0011gb

10. There are also spring and wet meadow brood rearing complexes that are likely to be impacted by geothermal development. All Both emc0411GB

11. At minimum, the NEPA analysis should address the following: • Identifying key early and late brood-rearing habitats and 

placing them off-limits to industrial use, with a biologically adequate buffer.

All Both emc0343GB

12. Sage-grouse Late Brood-Rearing and Summer Habitats -Potential suitable sagegrouse late brood-rearing habitats exist within 

all of BLM split estate parcels. Important sage-grouse brooding habitat generally includes wet areas such as meadows, springs, 

ponds and streams plus a 200-m zone around these water features. The mesic cover classes from the Colorado Vegetation 

Classification Project support a professional conclusion that the parcels include potential late brood-rearing habitat. Female 

sage-grouse breeding or nesting near oil and gas development have decreased summer survival. Brood-rearing female 

sage-grouse avoid areas with high densities of visible wells within 1 km. Chick survival also decreases. ld. at 2.

CO BLM emc0057RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-631

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-4.F

Comments Related to Sage-Grouse Summer Range

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. Another important objective should be treating sage brush to a lower growth form, not killing it but encouraging 

branches that are horizontal and low enough to the ground to actually hide sage grouse nests and chicks.

All Both cfc0006RM

2. Greater sage-grouse are attracted to grazed meadows; research shows that peak attendance of greater sagegrouse in 

grazed meadows (especially hens with chicks, starting in late July) is significantly higher than in ungrazed meadows. 

Grazing, even at moderate levels, affects forb phenology by changing the maturation process. Ungrazed plants mature, 

seed and weather after dispersion of the seeds, whereas grazed plants continue to grow new leaves throughout the 

summer, providing food forbs for greater sage-grouse (Evans 1986).

All Both emc0140RM, 

emc0382GB, 

emc0075RM

3. Sage-grouse Late Brood-Rearing and Summer Habitats -Potential suitable sagegrouse late brood-rearing habitats exist 

within all of BLM split estate parcels. Important sage-grouse brooding habitat generally includes wet areas such as

meadows, springs, ponds and streams plus a 200-m zone around these water features. The mesic cover classes from 

the Colorado Vegetation Classification Project support a professional conclusion that the parcels include potential late

brood-rearing habitat. Female sage-grouse breeding or nesting near oil and gas development have decreased summer 

survival. Brood-rearing female sage-grouse avoid areas with high densities of visible wells within 1 km. Chick survival 

also decreases. ld. at 2.

CO BLM emc0057RM

4. Production agriculture is also important in maintaining some of the late summer habitat found in irrigated hay 

meadows and other moist areas. The agricultural producers in North Park are effectively maintaining sage-grouse 

habitat by keeping the vast majority of North Park undeveloped. We would request thorough analysis of the impacts 

of removing production agriculture on the overall quantity and quality of sage-grouse habitat.

CO BLM emc0060RM

5. Public lands, and BLM-managed lands in particular, are key to sage grouse conservation and recovery. The BLM and 

Forest Service manage 58% of sage grouse habitat in Wyoming, while private landowners manage 38% (Connelly et al. 

2004). Rowland et al (2006:2-9) observed, “The BLM has management authority for nearly 47% of the sagebrush in the 

[Wyoming Basins Ecoregion] study area (12.1 million acres), comparable to the 52% of sagebrush managed by BLM 

nationwide (Knick et al. 2003; Table 2.6; Fig. 2.7).” Indeed, according to Knick et al. (2003:627), “Responsibility for 

maintaining sagebrush habitats and bird populations rests squarely on public land management agencies because most 

species’ summer ranges are owned publicly and managed by state or federal agencies.” Rowland et al (2006:1-2) 

echoed this conclusion: “Due to the preponderance of sagebrush on public lands, the future of this ecosystem will be 

shaped in large part by public lands management.” Yet over the past decade it has been the BLM that has been among 

the most recalcitrant opponents of changing land-use strategies.

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-632 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. A national team of sage grouse experts recommended restoration of sage grouse priority areas, where sage grouse breed 

and rear their broods, that no new oil and gas permits be issued in core sage grouse areas until a long term plan is 

developed and that BLM land managers modify or maintain grazing strategies to meet sage grouse habitat requirements. Yet 

this guidance is apparently missing so far from the BLM's new plan. We infer this from others' posted comments as we 

could not find the new BLM plan on the BLM website.

All Both rmc0039GB

2. One commenter noted that over the last decade of explosive growth in gas fields, already compromised sage grouse 

populations have been in "a population free fall," and that "unrestricted self-regulated industrialization is a dagger to the 

heart of the West." Such warnings need to be taken seriously.

All Both rmc0039GB

3. Science informs us that sage grouse need a minimum of a three mile circle buffer zone around leks to be viable, yet these 

limits are not respected. The free ride the oil and gas industry has been getting at the expense of public lands, ecological 

integrity, and imperiled species, including the sage grouse, can't continue.

All Both rmc0039GB

4. In an assessment, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies said that sage grouse populations have "tended to 

stabilize" after a period of sharp decline from the 1960s to mid- 1980s. With the development of oil and gas that has taken 

place since the 1980's how can environmentalist blame oil and gas as a need to list the species.

All Both cfc0017GB

5. In the heart of the nation's natural gas territory, a bird most Americans have never heard of, is being portrayed as 

threatening a piece of the multibillion-dollar energy industry. Federal scientists are weighing whether to put the sage grouse 

on the endangered species list. If that happens, it's likely to mean significant restrictions on energy development across a 

huge swath of the West. Much of the bird's habitat overlaps with the nation's prime gas drilling territory, in Wyoming, 

Montana, Colorado and Utah.

All Both cfc0017GB

6. Hundreds of natural gas wells have been drilled around the west in recent years, and thousands more are on the way. Much 

of the drilling would grind to a halt if the grouse's habitat came under federal protection. It is obvious to many of us that this 

effort is an attempt to STOP oil and gas and has little to do with sage grouse populations.

All Both cfc0017GB

7. Do not let this bird become a political battle to stop oil and gas much like the resent attempt by this administration with 

BLM's Wilderness Study Area.

All Both cfc0017GB

8. Millions of acres were set aside for the owls, and thousands of jobs were lost in the woods and in sawmills as the timber 

industry adjusted to downsizing. I want jobs to be created and not as this administration has done to decrease job 

opportunities i.e. Keystone pipeline. Once again, it is obvious that listing of this species is directed toward stopping oil and 

gas. DON'T stop self reliant efforts to become energy independent.

All Both cfc0017GB

9. The lesson isn't forgotten. Stakes are high enough that energy development supporters have begun a major effort to block 

the sage grouse from making it on the endangered species list. The campaign is being waged by a non-profit organization 

called Partnership for the West. Based in Golden, Colo., the group represents oil, gas, mining and ranching interests. I 

would ask that the BLM get back to basics and work for those that are paying their wages and tell the environmentalist to 

get a real job.

All Both cfc0017GB

10. At this time when gas and oil developement seem to be the most salient and important issue that we face. It is the 

responsibility of BLM to insure the remaining habitat of the sage grouse receive appropriate protective measures.

All Both emc0073GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-633

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

11. Exclude oil and gas leasing and development from critical sage-grouse habitat. All Both emc0085GB, 

emc0029rm

12. We have in western Colorado Roan Plateau sage grouse habitat that is being developed for natural gas too rapidly for the 

grouse to have anywhere to persist (hide out) during the road building, well drilling, workover phase.

All Both emc0092GB

13. My primary concern is the loss and degradation of habitat caused by incompatible uses. This includes extraction of energy 

sources and the grazing by livestock. Recent increases in the amount of federal lands that have been opened to oil and gas 

drilling has lead to loss of large patches of grouse habitat. Degradation from over‐grazing and grazing in an appropriate 

areas has destroyed thousands (millions??) more acres. Both of these activities need to be better managed and monitored, 

or better yet, not even allowed in Greater Sage‐grouse habitat.

All Both emc0102GB

14. I also urge you to include all Sage‐grouse habitat in your conservation planning. Millions of acres are managed by other 

federal and state agencies and need to be considered to ensure the protection of these birds. While protecting BLM and 

USFS lands would be a great start there are millions of acres owned by other agencies that also need to be protected.

Please work to get these agencies involved in your efforts.

All Both emc0102GB

15. If traffic and too many wells are a problem, maybe there could be a limit of wells per quarter section. I live near the oldest 

oil field in MT and I can't see where it affects the sage grouse at all.

All Both cfc0005RM

16. Also, please closely look at each oil and gas proposed well site to have proper set-backs (much large than being used 

currently) from core habitat areas.

All Both emc0010RM

17. The BLM has an interim policy to protect the Greater Sage-Grouse in 10 western states "until it can implement long-term 

policies to preserve habitat" for the species. "Allowing for more detailed reviews of oil and gas leasing to ensure sufficient 

protection of habitat" is a MUST...not just a suggestion.

All Both emc0012RM

18. Jason Naugl's research shows there were fewer than 300 grouse in Canada in 2010, a 13% chick survival rate, and negative 

impacts out to 4 miles from deep gas wells. A 2 - 10 year time-lag on energy development affects was noted.

All Both emc0012RM

19. The National Technical Team, in "A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures", cites BLM impacts 

of oil and gas drilling in Wyoming to justify withdrawal of sage grouse habitat to mining and mineral exploration activities. 

This assumes impacts of oil and gas exploration are directly comparable to mineral exploration and mining and fails to take 

into account differences in size and temporal scope of disturbance vis-0-vis these two activities

All Both emc0168GB

20. New Gas and Oil permits need to cease almost entirely. I performed an informal temporal change analysis of rangeland in 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah comparing satellite and aerial imagery of the 10 years and the lost of habitat is significant and 

very alarming. The BLM appears to be ignoring this as significant habitat loss by continued allowance of more oil and gas 

permits.

All Both emc0164GB

21. While the team members appear to have expertise in sage-grouse habitat, there seems to be little expertise in oil and gas 

exploration, development and operation practices. Prior to implementing additional conditions and stipulations BLM 

should engage in good faith discussion with industry representatives on such measures. BLM's analysis should also include 

the economic effect of any new stipulations as they will limit access to precious oil and gas reserves

All Both emc0228GB, 

emc0093rm

22. Also, new oil and gas drilling should be limited to directional drilling from existing pads. All Both emc0219GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-634 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

23. The BLM must also consider the effects of its decisions upon the ability to produce oil and gas, and to create a viable oil 

shale industry, and upon the tourism industry and recreational pursuits of those who live in Utah.

All Both emc0337GB

24. Recent greater sage-grouse studies also demonstrate that energy development and viable sage-grouse populations can 

successfully co-exist when reasonable mitigation measures are utilized during exploration, development, and production 

activities. Suggestions that oil and gas activities are extremely harmful to populations and habitat are overstated. Given that 

the energy industry is committed not only to studying ways to ameliorate impacts but to utilizing identified measures, we 

urge the BLM to recognize the protections already in place.

All Both emc0166GB

25. The exploration and development of oil and gas resources from public lands is a critical part ofthe BLM's responsibilities. 

See, e.g., 43 U.S.C. § 1702(1) (defining mineral exploration and development as a principal or major use of public lands). 

Under FLPMA, the BLM is required to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield. 43 U.S.C. §

1701(a)(7) (2006). " 'Multiple use management' is a deceptively simple term that describes the enormously complicated task 

of striking a balance among the many competing uses to which land can be put, 'including, but not limited to, recreation, 

range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and [uses serving] natural scenic, scientific and historical values.' " 

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004) (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c)). "Of course not all uses 

are compatible." !d. EOG recognizes the difficult task the BLM faces to manage public lands for multiple use, but encourages 

the BLM to remember that oil and gas development is a crucial part of the BLM's multiple use mandate. The BLM must 

ensure that oil and gas development is not unreasonably limited in the revision to the RMPs in the Western United States. 

Oil and gas operators have demonstrated over the years that oil and gas development can take place on the public lands 

without significantly impacting the environment.

All Both emc0166GB

26. When revising the existing RMPs, the BLM must also acknowledge valid existing rights, including oil and gas lease rights. 

Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without surface occupancy stipulations, and in the absence of a 

nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the 

leasehold. See, e.g., National Wildlife Federation, eta/., 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999). Only Congress has the right to

completely prohibit development once a lease has been issued. Western Colorado Congress, 130 IBLA 244, 248 (1994). 

Further, the BLM cannot adjust EOG's valid and existing rights. Congress made it clear when it enacted FLPMA that nothing 

therein, or in the land use plans developed thereunder, was intended to terminate, modify, or alter any valid or existing 

property rights. See 43 U.S.C. § 1701 (2006). In order to effectuate this purpose, the BLM promulgatedpolicies regarding 

the contractual rights granted in an oil and gas lease. BLM Instruction Memorandum 92-67 states that "[t]he lease contract 

conveys certain rights which must be honored through its term, regardless of the age of the lease, a change in surface 

management conditions, or the availability of new data or information. The contract was validly entered based upon the 

environmental standards and information current at the time of the lease issuance." As noted in the BLM's Instruction 

Memorandum, which is binding upon the agency, the lease constitutes a contract between the federal government and the 

lessee which cannot be unilaterally altered or modified by the BLM.

All BLM emc0166GB

27. Because, the authority conferred in FLPMA is expressly made subject to valid existing rights, 43 U.S.C. § 1701, an RMP 

prepared pursuant to FLPMA, after lease execution and after drilling and production has commenced, is likewise subject to 

existing rights. See Colorado Environmental Coal, eta/., 165 ffiLA 221, 228 (2005). The RMPs, when revised, cannot defeat

All BLM emc0166GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-635

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

or materially restrain BOG's valid and existing rights to develop its leases through conditions of approval or other means. 

See Colorado Environmental Coal, et a/., 165 IBLA 221, 228 (2005) (citing Colorado Environmental Coal., 135 ffiLA 356, 

360 (1996) aff'd, Colorado Environmental Coal. v. Bureau of Land Management, 932 F.Supp. 1247 (D.Colo. 1996).

28. In the revised RMPs and accompanying EIS the BLM should discuss the fact that an oil and gas lease is a contract between 

the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder which cannot be unilaterally 

modified by the BLM. See Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States, 530 U.S. 604, 620 (2000) 

(recognizing that lease contracts under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act give lessees the right to explore for and 

develop oil and gas); Oxy USA, Inc. v. Babbitt, 268 F.3d 1001, 1006-7 (lOth Cir. 2001) (noting that the Tenth Circuit has 

long held that federal oil and gas leases are contracts) rev'd on other grounds, BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 

U.S. 84 (2006). Although the BLM may be altering the existing RMPs, the BLM-and the public-should be reminded that the

BLM cannot alter or modify the terms of existing leases.

All Both emc0166GB

29. It is well established that NEP A only requires an agency to consider "reasonable alternatives." 40 C.P.R. § 1502.14 (2008). 

The BLM's obligation to consider alternatives is not without limitations. Courts and the Interior Board of Land Appeals 

("IBLA") have long held that "[a ]lternatives that do not accomplish the purpose of an action are not reasonable and need

not be studied in detail by the agency." Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. United States Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 

1030 (lOth Cir. 2002) (citations and internal punctuation omitted); Northern Ala. Envtl. Ctr., eta/., 153 ffiLA 253, 263 

(2004). ''NEPA does not require agencies to analyze the environmental consequences of alternatives it has in good faith 

rejected as too remote, speculative, or impractical or ineffective." Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297F.3d at 

1030-31 (internal punctuation omitted). When developing alternatives for the RMP amendments and accompanying EIS, the 

BLM must ensure that the alternatives analyzed are both feasible and economic. The Council on Environmental Quality 

("CEQ") has described reasonable alternatives as "those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic

standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable." CEQ's Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 2a, 46 

Fed. Reg. 18028, 18027 (Mar. 23, 1981) (emphasis added). BLM need not analyze speculative, impractical, or uneconomic 

alternatives. Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1030-31. For example, overly stringent restrictions or 

conditions of approval (COA) may render development uneconomic and need not be analyzed. Further, given the fact the 

public lands must be managed for multiple use including oil and gas development and given the fact that much of the public 

land in the Western United States is currently .leased for oil and gas development, alternatives that prohibit or eliminate all 

oil and gas development on public lands are neither practical nor reasonable and need not be studied in detail by the agency.

All BLM emc0166GB

30. The BLM should explain to the public during scoping meetings and in the EIS for the revised RMP amendments that oil and 

gas development activities are not prohibited during the resource management plan process. The position that the BLM 

must suspend all management decisions while an RMP is being revised has been rejected by numerous federal courts and 

the IBLA. See ORNC Action v. Bureau of Land Management, 150 F.3d 1132, 1139 41 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that neither 

FLPMA nor the applicable regulations require the BLM to institute a moratorium on activities pending completion of an EIS 

for an updated or revised RMP); Western Land Energy Project v. Dombeck, 47 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1213 (D. Ore. 1999) 

(same); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 163 IDLA 14,28 (2004); Wyoming Outdoor Council, eta/., 156 IDLA 377, 384 

(2002); Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., 124 IDLA 130, 140 (1992). The Washington Office of the BLM has issued 

All Both emc0166GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-636 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

specific guidance noting that the BLM is authorized to approve and analyze oil and gas projects on a site-specific basis while 

an RMP amendment is underway. "When an RMP is being amended or revised, BLM will continue to process sitespecific

permits, sundry notices, and related authorizations on existing leases in an expeditious manner while ensuring compliance 

with NEP A and other laws, regulations, and policies." Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2001-191, pg. 1 

(August 6, 2001). "Actions that may appear to reduce a lessee's right to reasonably develop a lease should be cleared 

through the State Director and Regional Solicitor's Office." !d. The BLM should not limit or restrict oil and gas development 

during the amendment process.

31. The BLM should also utilize existing data developed in Wyoming regarding sage-grouse populations and energy 

development. Four studies were prepared by Hayden-Wing Associates and Taylor Environmental Consulting LLC and 

were conducted using the most current publicly available data on lek attendance in developed oil and gas fields maintained 

by Wyoming Game and Fish Department and Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. These studies, identified

below, have been subjected to formal peer review by highly respected wildlife journals; and, we urge they be utilized as an 

integral part of the agency's analysis processes. 1. Human Impacts And Multilevel Processes In Greater Sage-Grouse 

Population Dynamics - Harju, Dzialak, Taylor, Clark, Hayden-Wing, and Winstead. 2. Factors Affecting Lek Occupancy 

Dynamics In Greater Sage-Grouse- Clark, Taylor, Dzialak, Hayden-Wing, Harju, Sutter, and Winstead. 3. Thresholds Of 

Energy Development And Greater Sage-Grouse Populations - Harju, Taylor, Dzialak, Clark, Hayden-Wing, and Winstead.

4. Identifying And Prioritizing Greater Sag-Grouse Nesting And Brood Rearing Habitat For Conservation In 

Human-Modified Landscapes - Dzialak, Olsen, Harju, Webb, Mudd, Winstead, and Hayden-Wing. Contrary to the 

conclusions reached in other studies, findings contained in these studies clearly demonstrate that energy development and 

viable sage-grouse populations can successfully co-exist when reasonable mitigation measures are utilized during 

exploration, development and producing activities.

All Both emc0166GB

32. The BLM must analyze the potential impacts that additional restrictions on oil and gas operations, and other uses of the 

public lands, will have upon local and regional economics. Such an analysis must be prepared on a local, planning level, not 

a single national or regional level. Only with site-specific economic impact analysis will public lands users and local

governments understand the potential economic consequences of additional restrictions. Such an economic analysis is 

specifically required by the BLM Planning Regulations and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook. 43 C.P.R. §§ 1610.4-4(g), 

1610.4-6; BLM Manual H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook, Appendix D (Rel. 1-1693 03/11/05).

All BLM emc0166GB

33. As indicated by the number of decisions cited above, the purpose of the RFD Scenario continues to be a source of 

confusion and litigation. Even now appeals are pending before the ffiLA and federal courts across the nation in which groups 

opposed to continued energy development are attempting to argue the RFD Scenario as a cap to preclude further domestic

energy development. Thus, the BLM must carefully explain to the public that the RFD Scenario is not a cap or limitation on 

future development. In the most recent published decision from the IBLA regarding the RFD Scenario, the IBLA 

unequivocally determined that the RFD Scenario is not, and cannot be used as, a limitation on future oil and gas 

development. "While an important tool in the land use planning process, RFD scenarios do not constitute fixed or 

maximum limits on development under FLPMA such that exceeding them constitutes a violation of that statute."

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, eta/., 174 IBLA 1, 11 (2008).

All Both emc0166GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-637

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

34. In order to prevent future litigation and appeals, the BLM must include language in the revised RMPs describing the purpose 

of the RFD Scenario and the fact that the RFD Scenario is not a planning decision or limitation on future oil and gas 

development. Instruction Memorandum 2004-089, Policy for Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil 

and Gas (Jan. 16, 2004). For example, the BLM could expressly adopt and incorporate the position the Secretary of the 

Interior, through the IBLA, has expressed regarding the RFD Scenario in a recent published opinion: Noting that an RFD 

scenario is an analytical tool, we expressly rejected both the idea that it establishes a point past which further exploration 

and development is prohibited, and the assumption that the underlying environmental analysis has no validity beyond the 

RFD scenario. In rejecting that assertion, we implicitly agreed with BLM that an RFD scenario is neither a planning decision 

nor the No Action Alternative in the NEP A document. National Wildlife Federation, 170 IBLA 240, 249 (2006) (internal 

quotations and citations omitted).

All BLM emc0166GB

35. When revising the RMPs the BLM should ensure that stipulations developed for future oil and gas leasing are the least 

restrictive necessary to adequately protect other resource values. As the BLM is aware, Section 363 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 required the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a Memorandum of 

Understanding regarding oil and gas leasing and to ensure that lease stipulations are applied consistently, coordinated 

between agencies, and "only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which the stipulations are applied." 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 363(b )(3), 119 Stat. 594, 722 (2005). The Memorandum of Understanding 

required by § 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was finalized in April of 2006 as BLM MOU W0300-2006-07. The

stipulations for oil and gas leases within the revised RMPs should not be onerous or more restrictive than necessary.

All Both emc0166GB

36. EOG encourages the BLM to comply with all of the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 as well as the procedural requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, while limiting its 

discussion of alternatives to only those that are reasonable and practicable. For example, the BLM should not impose or 

develop mitigation measures that are inconsistent with existing rights nor should the agency analyze alternatives that 

unreasonably restrict multiple use of the public lands. The BLM should also ensure that it does not impose overly stringent 

or unreasonable limitations on oil and gas development. The BLM should also ensure that it prepare accurate economic 

analysis and does not attempt to utilize the RFD Scenario as a limit on oil and gas development.

All Both emc0166GB

37. The BLM must ensure that sage grouse conservation measures can be enacted in a manner that will not adversely impact 

the energy industry, which is so vital to local, state and national economic well-being. If sage grouse conservation hampers 

the energy industry's ability to produce domestic natural resources, such as oil and gas, prices will increase as demand 

increases and the country resorts to importing more energy from foreign sources. Energy price increases will hurt the 

fragile national economic recovery.

All Both emc0242GB

38. The success of lek and nesting locations near existing - oil and gas development should be analyzed in the RMP 

amendments.

All Both emc0242GB

39. The continued exploration and production of OiL Gas and other resources is an important factor in keeping the social and 

economic infrastructure on our local area and of this country intact. But further, we firmly believe their partnerships with 

other entities in the private sector and with govermnent agencies are crucial to the success of this endeavor. The funding 

these companies have provided will assist in funding research and direct on-the-ground Sage Grouse habitat improvements. 

All Both emc0410GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-638 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

The research can increase better understanding of the bini's habits and traits in and around the areas that these projects are 

located. Cooperative actions such as just described will detinitely help to keep funds available which is very important to 

sustain longterm projects to increase the sustainability of sage grouse habitat.

40. Oil and gas leasing (or geothermal leasing) has no impact to the Sage Grouse population in Nevada. If it is determined that 

the Sage grouse populations in Nevada are declining then leases could be issued with stipulations regarding the preservation 

of Sage grouse populations and or habitats.

All Both emc0245GB, 

emc0099RM

41. Oil and gas development was to be monitored. This industry directly impacts the G.S. grouse. All Both cfc0008RM

42. Oil and gas industries must be made to help with the preservation of these birds! All Both cfc0008RM

43. I believe that there are several factors involved in the decrease of their population. Industry such as oil and gas drilling and 

wind generators that are located in their habitat areas have a great influence on the nesting and strutting leks.

All Both cfc0014RM

44. With these new regulations you are going to really hurt the oil and gas industry, people that work there, the states that rely 

on that income, our country with lack of revenue and having to import more foreign oil. In a time of world unrest in the 

Middle East, we don't need more restrictions at home for oil & gas exploration. A lot of common sense is needed in this 

matter, not more regulations.

All Both cfc0022RM

45. Mineral Development. #1 NTR - ok. #2 ok #3 Maintainence may be crucial (usually is) on existing producing wells. 

Guidance should be case by case.

All Both cfc0025RM

46. "Close priority sage grouse habitats to fluid mineral leasing." No! That is taking. May put in timing guidelines and stay back 

from lek. Who would enforce this?

All Both cfc0025RM

47. 6. BLM should proactively address management of oil and gas development in sagegrouse habitat. Oil and gas development 

has already had significant impacts on sage-grouse habitat. Through both this process and other ongoing efforts, the BLM 

has the opportunity to set the stage for responsible oil and gas development to proceed while ensuring protection of 

greater sage-grouse habitat.

All Both emc0234GB

48. BLM should use master leasing plans to create detailed plans for oil and gas development that protect sage-grouse habitat. All BLM emc0234GB

49. BLM is currently preparing master leasing plans (MLPs) pursuant to 1M 2010-117 to "strategically plan" for leasing and 

development in areas with important resource values, such as critical wildlife habitat, in order to resolve potential resource 

conflicts and environmental impacts. There are three primary steps that BLM must complete as part of preparing MLPs: • 

First, the BLM must fully identify the "important national and local resource/sl" located in MLP areas. 1M 2010-117 at II.A;

• Second, the BLM must identify and evaluate "potential conflicts" between oil and gas activity and the protection of those 

resources. 1M 2010- I 17 at II.A; and • Third, the BLM must identify and evaluate "planning decisions" to address resource

conflicts. 1M 2010-117 at II.B. By taking these steps, BLM can create MLPs that address both protection of sage-grouse 

habitat from oil and gas development (including closures to leasing and releasing, and stringent protections from drilling 

where appropriate) and conducting responsible oil and gas development in a manner that will not adversely affect 

sage-grouse habitat. In fact, there is sage-grouse habitat in many of the MLPs already under consideration or proposed 

(such as those being evaluated in the Lander (WY), Rock Springs (WY), White River (CO), and Kremmling (CO) RMPs).

All BLM emc0234GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-639

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

50. b. BLM should address deferred leasing in these EISs. In accordance with BLM's interim guidance on managing oil and gas 

leasing in sage-grouse habitat (see, 1M 2012-043) and other consideration of sage-grouse habitat, BLM has been deferring 

parcels from lease sales based on potential impacts to sage-grouse and the expected outcome of this process. As a result, 

even with conservation measures adopted through this process, there may well be a substantial amount of nominated 

parcels to be addressed once this EIS process is completed. BLM should plan for how this acreage will be considered for 

leasing and avoid a large-scale, unplanned leasing of habitat.

All Both emc0234GB

51. Recommendation: BLM should incorporate a strategic leasing plan for deferred leases that may be available for leasing after 

completion of these EISs

All BLM emc0234GB

52. The Multiple Use Sustained Act Yield Act requires BLM to manage its lands for "multiple uses," including livestock grazing 

and oil/gas exploration and recovery. Resource Management Plans (RMP) should recognize that sage grouse management 

can be compatible with livestock grazing and oil development. Furthermore, normal activities of multiple uses should be 

allowed to continue until the plan revisions have been made. No activities, such as livestock grazing, should be stopped in 

the interim. Any change in use should follow existing legal procedures for changing such use.

All Both emc0024RM

53. We also believe the impact of the pipeline on migratory corridors has been overlooked. While alternative B bisects only a 

small portion of Montana sage-grouse core area 1, it bisects key migratory pathways for sage-grouse coming from and 

moving to Canada. Because sage-grouse from core areas 1 and 2 provide ‘source’ populations for sage-grouse that are 

federally listed as endangered in Canada, it is imperative that we not disrupt their migration in this region. All pump stations 

and other permanent structures should be placed a minimum of 2 miles (3.2 km) from the nearest lek, with a preferred 

distance of >4 miles (6.4 km) from active leks, based upon the best-available data from Naugle et al. (2011). Power lines 

should be buried whenever possible to decrease impacts from aerial predators. These recommendations hold for all types 

of oil and gas development within the range of greater sage-grouse and should be applied to the Keystone XL pipeline on 

BLM lands without exception.

All Both emc0034RM

54. Sage-grouse Nesting and Early Brood-Rearing Habitats ··- There is potential nesting and early brood-rearing habitat within 

8 km of known lek as identified through the Colorado Vegetation Classification Project data. CDOW documented

sage-grouse use of all parcels, supporting the conclusion that suitable habitat exists in the parcels. Sagebrush dominant 

habitats within 5.5 km of a lek have a higher probability of use for nesting and early brood-rearing. Female sage-grouse avoid 

nesting within 1 km of oil and gas infrastructure and have a lower annual survival. Chick survival decreases within l km of 

visible wells. !d. at 2.

All BLM emc0057RM

55. Please do not allow new oil or gas drilling in priority sage grouse habitat. Please may we use directional drilling from existing 

drilling pads

All Both emc0264GB

56. The County further questions the viability of restricting access to leased or unleased federal fluid mineral estate by 

helicopter-portable drilling methods in priority habitat areas without the ability to transport the gas to market. This is 

especially challenging when there may already be seasonal timing restrictions are already in place. "Alternative B" on Page 

22 ofthe National SGS Report appears to be more reasonable as it provides an opportunity for energy development to 

occur so long appropriate mitigation measures are also being pursued. The County recommends that the EIS contain an 

alternative that is consistent with this approach rather than a complete NSO alternative with very limited (3%) disturbance 

All Both emc0058RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-640 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

rules.

57. Some times it appears there is a double standard when you consider how many birds are killed each day, even endagered 

species, by wind tubines then stop all drilling because sage grouse habitat is near by.

All Both emc0081RM

58. With regards to linkages between priority and priority habitats, these linkages should be given a priority status, therefore 

adding to and extending the coverage and classification of priority habitat. This is given due to an acknowledgement that 

priority habitats are currently classified due to known lek sites. However, currently considered areas of high priority are 

also areas in which oil and gas development is taking place on both public and private lands. Therefore, continual and 

arguably permanent disturbance has already taken. Since the BLM has the only potential to guarantee saved habitat for the 

Greater Sage Grouse, I argue that more extensive measures need to be taken to define GSG habitat for the next twenty 

year plan. The current NTT goals and objectives do not address this important consideration, and fall short in the agency’s 

responsibility to protect the Greater Sage Grouse and its habitat.

All Both emc0074RM

59. When considering disturbance density of oil and gas development, with development including but not limited to drilling, 

well creation, road creation and or usage, and maintenance, the BLM should allow no more than five drill sites within a 5.5 

mile radius of each lek site. In this notation and further notations, I am considering drill sites to include sites that have a 

production value as well as those which do not. In this notation as well as further notations, I am considering disturbance 

density to include already existing oil and gas development as well as potential oil and gas development. Therefore, 

preexisting and potential oil and or gas sites will come to a cumulative total of five, not five of one and not five of another.

All BLM emc0074RM

60. When considering the necessity for habitat preservation, all priority sites will be designated high priority and mandatorily 

set aside from any new or further oil and gas development, as well as road and other leasing development.

All BLM emc0074RM

61. When considering the necessity for habitat preservation, all linkages between any site and a priority site will also be 

designated high priority and mandatorily set aside from any new or further oil and gas development, as well as road and 

other leasing development.

All Both emc0074RM

62. When considering the necessity for habitat preservation, all general habitat sites will be designated medium priority sites, 

with a mandatory evaluation of their protection from oil and gas development, and road development, and other leasing 

development. It will be mandatory for the BLM to act upon new information provided regarding lek locations, regardless of 

their activity status, and to install protective measures in the middle of the finalized land usage plan. These measures will

follow the regulations of all high priority, priority and general habitats, as well as mandatory exemptions from oil and gas 

development, road and other leasing developments as other Greater Sage Grouse habitats have undergone.

All BLM emc0074RM

63. Another disturbance not specifically identified or addressed in existing or draft RMPs is the impact that natural gas flaring 

poses to greater sage-grouse. Flaring is believed to pose a threat from several standpoints. Noise associated with flaring 

may cause disturbance and increased predator effectiveness. Sound may directly interfere with lek display vocalizations and 

harmonics. Light from flaring can extend far beyond the immediate pad area, and this increased availability of light may 

provide increased opportunity for predation at times when natural light is normally not available. Light may also directly 

preclude grouse from using lek sites or other seasonal habitats.

All Both emc0072RM

64. CPW also expects that BLM will consider and analyze a wide range of cumulative impacts of developments on greater All Both emc0072RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-641

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse, including projects that are in the planning or development phase (e.g., interstate transmission lines, interstate 

pipelines, and adjacent state greater sage-grouse RMP revisions). It is unclear to CPW how cumulative impacts will be 

addressed in circumstances where impacts occur across state boundaries, such as is the case with the Hiawatha 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Many questions also remain regarding oil shale energy development. For example, 

how will the potential cumulative impacts of the programmatic oil shale leasing EIS fit into this RMP? Other energy 

development EISs have also been completed and it is unknown how they may integrate with the greater sage-grouse PRMP. 

Will previously analyzed coal mining EIS findings be integrated into this PRMP as well?

65. We also have an interest in the other uses of Forest Service lands. In general, activities which have low impact do not 

appear to disturb species such as sage grouse. In regards to oil and gas development, the country needs energy. Such 

development does appear to be an activity which disturbs these highly sensitive birds. It should be allowed when it does not 

negatively impact grouse. I note that the document addresses split estate. Energy companies which develop minerals on 

split estate lands need to be made aware of sage grouse concerns. Recently, a company contacted us about leasing minerals 

in an area where they hold the lease, and both private and federal minerals lie underneath our private surface. When I

mentioned that the area has a lot of grouse, and that it is contiguous to critical habitat, the person I was talking to was

mystified, and in fact asked me to spell "Sage Grouse".

All Both emc0088RM

66. We also have an interest in the other uses of Forest Service lands. In general, activities which have low impact do not 

appear to disturb species such as sage grouse. In regards to oil and gas development, the country needs energy. Such 

development does appear to be an activity which disturbs these highly sensitive birds. It should be allowed when it does not 

negatively impact grouse. I note that the document addresses split estate. Energy companies which develop minerals on 

split estate lands need to be made aware of sage grouse concerns. Recently, a company contacted us about leasing minerals 

in an area where they hold the lease, and both private and federal minerals lie underneath our private surface. When I 

mentioned that the area has a lot of grouse, and that it is contiguous to critical habitat, the person I was talking to was

mystified, and in fact asked me to spell “Sage Grouse

All Both emc0088RM

67. A recommendation about a relevant recent publication to consider in development of a National Sage Grouse Strategy We 

would like to take this opportunity to remind the BLM that an advance online copy of a peer-reviewed paper titled Oil and 

Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): A Review of Threats and Mitigation Measures 

was personally handed to the BLM’s Director and Assistant Director on September 16, 2011, three months in advance of 

the release of the December 27, 2011 Instructional Memorandum and 2011 Report On National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures (hereafter, referred to as the 2011 NTT Report). This paper is an open access publication available 

at http://iceed.org/. It is a thorough scientific and technical review that is highly relevant to development of the BLM’s 

National Strategy. This paper should be considered in the revised or amended RMPs.

All BLM emc0346GB

68. There is at present no systematic cataloging and quantitative evaluation of the type, extent, and effectiveness of mitigation

measures previously required of the oil and gas industry by the BLM. Because of their monitoring and adaptive management 

function, BLM’s Resource Management Plans (RMPs), need the support of a database on mitigation measures required of oil 

and gas operations on BLM-managed lands. Without this information, we are concerned that the BLM will expend a great 

deal of time reinventing the wheel in applying and testing new mitigation and conservations measures, when some of these 

All BLM emc0346GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-642 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

adaptive management experiments have already been undertaken, in multiple locations. The oil and gas industry has 

participated in many ways to the conservation of sage grouse, from implementing mitigation measures on individual 

projects, to partnering on land conservation easements and land preservation efforts. Industry’s efforts have been 

paralleled by those of the local working groups to develop voluntary measures for conservation of the sage grouse and its 

habitat. However, we see no acknowledgement of these efforts in the National Strategy or NTT Report. In the spirit of 

cooperative conservation, and to further the scientific basis of future efforts, we urge the BLM to develop the database 

described above to capture the lessons learned from the various efforts pursued by agencies, industry, private landowners 

and conservation organizations for the benefit of this species.

69. The NTT appears to be unfamiliar with technologies developed and currently in use by the oil and gas industry that are 

designed to increase efficiency and safety of operations, while simultaneously reducing environmental impacts. A 

contributing factor to this lack of familiarity is the fact that the majority of studies on oil and gas industry impacts are based 

upon decades old technology in intensively developed areas. As noted in a recent paper on the subject, "Current 

stipulations and regulations for oil and gas development in sage grouse habitat are largely based on studies from the Jonah 

Gas Field and Pinedale anticline. These and other intensive developments were permitted decades ago, using older, more 

invasive technologies and methods. The density of wells is high, largely due to the previous practice of drilling many vertical 

wells to tap the resource (before the use of directional and horizontal drilling of multiple wells from a single surface 

location became widespread), and prior to concerns over sage grouse conservation. This type of intensive development set 

people’s perceptions of what future oil and gas development would look like and what its impact to sage grouse would be. 

These fields, and their effect on sage grouse, are not necessarily representative of sage grouse responses to less intensive 

energy development. Recent environmental regulations and newer technologies have lessened the threats to sage grouse." 

(Ramey, Brown & Blackgoat 2011). The strategy and subsequent revisions or amendments to RMPs should incorporate 

information and knowledge not only from experts in wildlife biology but also engineers and other industry specialists who 

develop and implement the types of technological innovations that improve the efficiency of oil and gas operations and 

reduce their environmental impacts.

All BLM emc0346GB

70. Two narrow alternatives are presented, Alternative A: closing priority sage grouse habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, and 

Alternative B: allowing leasing when there is checkerboard ownership and a mitigation plan developed that will bring 

long-term population increases. Alternative B, does not acknowledge that it may not be possible to meet the condition that 

the sage grouse population in the proposed lease area be increased through mitigation above its current number (i.e. 

because it is already high, prior to leasing). A more reasonable set of alternatives would include a range of population level 

responses that take into account natural population fluctuations (e.g. an expected percentage of change over current 

number over the life of the field). Also, alternatives are needed that address not only population and habitat variables but 

also the socioeconomic impacts associated with reduced oil and natural gas production from the federal mineral estate.

All BLM emc0346GB

71. The development of oil and gas resources from public lands is a critical part of the BLM's responsibilities. See, e.g., 43 U.S.C. 

§ 1702(l) (defining mineral exploration and development as a principal or major use of public lands). Under FLPMA, the BLM 

is required to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield. 43 U.S.C. § 1701 (a)(7) (2006). 

"'Multiple use managemene is a deceptively simple term that describes the enormously complicated task of striking a 

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-643

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

balance among the many competing uses to which land can be put, 'including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, 

minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and [uses serving] natural scenic, scientific and historical values.' " Norton v. Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004) (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1702(c)). "Of course not all uses are compatible." {d. 

Devon recognizes the difficult task the BLM faces to manage public lands for multiple use but reiterates that oil and gas 

development is a crucial part of the BLM's multiple use mandate. The BLM must ensure that oil and gas development is not 

unreasonably limited in the revision to the RMPs in the Western United States. Oil and gas operators have consistently 

demonstrated that oil and gas development and environmental stewardship can co-exist on federal lands.

72. When revising the existing RMPs, the BLM must also acknowledge existing rights, including oil and gas lease rights. Once 

the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without no surface occupancy stipulations, and in the absence of a 

nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the 

leasehold. See, e.g., National Wildlife Federation, et al., 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999). Only Congress has the right to 

completely prohibit development once a lease has been issued. Western Colorado Congress, 130 IBLA 244, 248 (1994). 

Further, the BLM cannot adjust Devon's valid and existing rights. Congress made it dear when it enacted FLPMA that 

nothing therein, or in the land use plans developed thereunder, was intended to terminate, modify, or alter any valid or 

existing property rights. See 43 U.S.C. § 1701 (2006). In order to effectuate this purpose, the BLM promulgated policies 

regarding the contractual rights granted in an oil and gas lease. BLM Instruction Memorandum 92-67 states that U[t]he 

lease contract conveys certain rights which must be honored through its term, regardless of the age of the lease, a change 

in surface management conditions, or the availability of new data or information. The contract was validly entered based 

upon the environmental standards and information current at the time of the lease issuance." As noted in the BLM's 

Instruction Memorandum, which is binding upon the agency, the lease constitutes a contract between the federal 

government and the lessee which cannot be unilaterally altered or modified by the BLM.

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

73. In the revised RMPs and accompanying EIS, the BLM should discuss the fact that an oil and gas lease is a binding contract 

between the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder. See Mobil Oil 

Exploration ft Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States, 530 U.S. 604, 620 (2000) (recognizing that lease contracts under 

the Outer Continental Shelf lands Act gives lessees the right to explore for and develop oil and gas); Oxy USA, Inc. v. 

Babbitt, 268 F.3d 1001,1006-7 (10th Cir. 2001) (noting that the Tenth Circuit has long held that federal oil and gas leases 

are contracts) rev'd on other grounds, BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84 (2006). Although the BLM may 

alter the existing RMPs, the BLM-and the pUblic-must be reminded that the BLM cannot alter or modify the terms of 

existing leases.

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

74. When revising the RMPs the BLM should ensure that stipulations developed for future oil and gas leasing are the least 

restrictive necessary to adequately protect other resource values. As the BLM is aware, Section 363 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 required the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a Memorandum of 

Understanding regarding oil and gas leasing and to ensure that lease stipulations are applied consistently, coordinated 

between agencies, and "only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which the stipulations are applied." 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, pub. l. no. 109-58, § 363(b)(3), 119 Stat. 594, 722 (2005). The Memorandum of Understanding 

required by § 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was finalized in April of 2006 as BLM MOU W0300- 2006-07. The 

All BLM emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-644 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

stipulations for oil and gas leases within the revised RMPs should not be onerous or more restrictive than necessary.

75. Reduce the potential for West Nile Virus by eliminating surface discharge of produced water for oil and gas. BLM should 

implement policies that reduce and eliminate the discharge of produced water on the surface in order to reduce the 

breeding environment for the culex mosquito which is the carrier of West Nile Virus.

All BLM emc0129RM

76. The intent is "to maintain, enhance, or restore conditions that meet Greater Sage-Grouse life historic needs." Since federal 

agencies manage wildlife habitat resources in cooperation with States and partners in an effort to restore habitat for big 

game and improving habitat quality for a large variety of wildlife species, it is important for the agencies to recognize that 

the oil and gas industry has been an active participant in a number of such efforts. Industry has gone to great lengths to 

document the effectiveness of mitigation and conservation measures it has implemented in Colorado, Montana, Utah and 

Wyoming in order to minimize potential impacts to the Sage-grouse. In comments submitted in 2008 to the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, IPAMS (now Western Energy Alliance) and the American Petroleum Institute provided examples of 

conservation and mitigation measures utilized by the industry around the Greater Sage‐Grouse range. PAW submitted 

similar comments through the Wyoming Governor’s office, which in turn were submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Sets of both these comments will be submitted as a supplement to these comments due to their size and will be 

labeled Attachments A and B, respectively. We caution, however, that such

All Both emc0340GB

77. We urge acknowledgement and consideration of all studies and programs that have been undertaken regarding oil and gas 

activities and Sage-grouse viability along with other stakeholders. For example, studies have been conducted in Wyoming 

to determine the actual impacts of energy development on the Greater sage-grouse which can be extrapolated to other 

areas. A published study prepared by Hayden-Wing Associates and Taylor Environmental Consulting LLC was conducted 

using the most current publicly available data on lek attendance in developed oil and gas fields maintained by Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department and Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Identified below, the study has been 

subjected to formal peer review by a highly respected wildlife journal; and, we urge that it be utilized as an integral part of 

the agency’s analysis processes. In addition, we refer BLM to another published study, Oil and Gas Development and 

Greater Sage Grouse: A review of Threats and Mitigation. Copies of these studies and their findings will be forwarded to 

you under separate cover and are incorporated by reference into these comments as Attachments C and D, respectively. 

These scientific documents must be accounted for in land management planning decisions. BLM must not cherry pick its 

scientific evidence. - Thresholds Of Energy Development and Greater Sage-Grouse Populations - Harju, Taylor, Dzialak, 

Clark, Hayden-Wing, and Winstead 2010 - Oil And Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus 

Urophasianus): A Review Of Threats and Mitigation Measures, Ramey, Brown, and Blackgoat 2011 Contrary to the 

conclusions reached in other studies, findings contained in these studies clearly demonstrate that energy development and 

viable sage-grouse populations can successfully coexist when reasonable mitigation measures are utilized during 

exploration, development and producing activities. As such, claims that oil and gas activities result in significant sage-grouse 

population decline and habitat are completely unfounded. Given that the energy industry has plainly demonstrated its 

long-term commitment to finding ways to diminish impacts from its operations on Sage-grouse through BLM-approved 

best management practices and to utilize effective mitigation measures, we urge that all analyses to focus upon management 

All Both emc0340GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-645

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

options that provide flexibility that would not be available if the species were listed under the Endanger Species Act.

78. Additionally, in order to implement a truly effective management strategy, a comprehensive database is essential to 

maintaining a record of the type, extent, and effectiveness of mitigation measures already in use by the oil and gas industry. 

It would also incorporate all new measures as they are developed to ascertain their effectiveness. Such a database would 

provide an overview of which measures are useful and which should be discarded as ineffective. Without this information, 

the application of adaptive management would be fallacy.

All Both emc0340GB

79. Additionally, in recognition of the time and money that has been expended to ensure economic viability of such projects, 

we urge the agencies to adopt a similar approach to Wyoming’s when identifying reasonable conservation and mitigation 

measures in all habitat areas. The validity of recognizing current uses in developing a reasonable management strategy has 

been upheld by a variety of federal courts and the Department of Interior’s own Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). As 

such, we would oppose the suspension or delay of any existing projects or project proposals that occur on existing leases 

during preparation of the EISs. Should the agencies decide to eliminate certain existing uses, they must provide strong 

scientific evidence that the State’s population management goals for Greater Sage-grouse cannot be met.

All Both emc0340GB

80. According to IM 2012-043, under the Fluid Minerals Section, FOs are instructed to "issue Written Orders of the 

Authorized Officer (43 CFR 3161.2) requiring reasonable protective measures consistent with the lease terms where 

necessary to avoid or minimize effects to Greater Sage-Grouse populations and its habitat." We support BLM’s 

commitment to protecting valid existing rights. However, we recommend that this instruction be clarified to specify that 

once a lease has been issued, the lessee is entitled to access on the lease when it does not involve a species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. In such cases it is crucial for BLM to retain on-the-ground flexibility when identifying such 

protective measures. It is outside BLM’s authority to attempt to impose conservation measures that would provide the 

same or greater restrictions on activities as would be applied under the Endangered Species Act at the expense of valid 

existing lease rights. If listed, management under the ESA would seek to "restore" habitat and populations with delisting as 

a goal. The agencies cannot unilaterally manage any state-owned species for recovery. Population management goals are 

the purview of the state and federal land management agencies must manage their lands accordingly. For example, the NTT 

Conservation report includes the recommendation not to allow new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority 

habitats; this includes winter concentration areas during any time of the year. Clearly, this is but one example of where 

BLM’s approach fails to recognize valid existing rights and must be eliminated. The recognition of valid and existing leases 

in the analysis for each RMP is a critical aspect that cannot be ignored.

All BLM emc0340GB

81. Predation is a significant factor in managing Sage-grouse habitat. A paper, based upon 3 years of research, was recently 

published in Ecological Processes, a SpringerOpen Journal, titled Landscape Features and Weather Influence Nest Survival 

of a Ground-Nesting Bird of Conservation Concern, the Greater Sage-Grouse, in Human-altered Environments 

(Attachment E) has identified several methods for conserving Sage-grouse but points out that there is a specific lack of 

understanding of the relationship between energy development and nest and brood failure. Consequently, more research 

is needed before determining what mitigation measures would be most effective. Another recent paper, Identifying and 

Prioritizing Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting and Brood-Rearing Habitat for Conservation in Human-Modified Landscapes 

All Both emc0340GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-646 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

(Attachment E), published in the journal PLoS ONE (Attachment F) recommended that constraints on human activity be 

focused in specific areas rather than applied on a regional scale. Importantly, mitigation measures should be utilized 

primarily in areas of high habitat value. As such, mitigation should aim for a specific percent reduction in the risk of nest

failure by contemplating constraints on infrastructure or water management activity within a given distance of a high 

probability of occurrence of nesting habitat. It is critical for a distinction to be made between low-performance habitat for 

nesting and brood rearing and high-performing habitat. Nevertheless, we recognize that measures to avoid or minimize the 

creation of new anthropogenic risk factors in high-performance habitat are needed along with steps to reduce existing risk 

factors that render a habitat low-performance such as burying utility lines, removing utility poles, and discouraging the use 

of facilities by avian predators would reduce predator density and effectiveness. In all, we strongly recommend that the 

agencies work closely with the oil and gas industry in developing site-specific measures that achieve the desired result of 

lowering predation risk in developed areas.

82. Specifically, management prescriptions for this proposed ACEC should implement the conservation measures 

recommended by the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team in December, 2011 (SGNTT, 2011). Recent publications have 

exhaustively documented the special conservation actions needed to sustain Greater Sage-Grouse in the American West 

(SAB 2011). Because this proposed ACEC includes priority/core sage grouse habitat, we recommend the following special 

management to address activities that will fragment the sage-steppe habitats upon which the greater sage-grouse depends:

1. Fluid Minerals/ Oil and gas: The Sage-Grouse National Technical Team recommends that unleased federal fluid minerals 

be closed to leasing in priority sage grouse habitat. Upon expiration or termination of existing leases no new nominations/ 

expressions of interest should be accepted. The lands within the proposed Dillon Resource Area ACEC are almost entirely 

unleased (see attached map: “Beaverhead Headwaters/ Centennial Valley Sage Grouse Core Areas”). Management 

prescriptions for this ACEC should implement the Technical Team’s recommendation, closing these lands to future leasing.

This would include all of the federal mineral estate within the boundaries of the ACEC, regardless of surface land 

ownership. The current Dillon Resource Management Plan requires only a Xmile NSO stipulation around sage grouse leks. 

More recent research reflected in the National Technical Team’s report indicates that “applying NSO or other buffers 

around leks at any distance is unlikely to be effective. Even if this approach were to be continued, it should be noted that 

protecting even 75 to >80% of nesting hens would require a 4-mile buffer.” SGNTT, 2011, pp 20-21). Given the current 

lack of interest in oil and gas within the boundaries of the proposed ACEC, special management provisions should be put 

in place now to protect Sage-Grouse habitat and provide for enhanced and resilient populations in southwest Montana.

All Both emc0248GB

83. I support development of new energy sources in the United States, including the oil and gas reserves in Wyoming and 

Montana. But, I think we need to come up with some type of development fees in exchange for development rights, that 

could be imposed on property owners selling or leasing their lands for energy development, and imposed on the energy 

companies themselves that profit from this development. The money collected from these fees could be used to purchase 

other land to be set aside in perpetuity as habitat for species such as the sage grouse. (Also, these fees could be used to 

mitigate groundwater pollution that appears to be a result of the fracking process). If imposition of these development fees 

would require listing the sage grouse as an endangered species, I would be in favor of that too. The bottom line here is, we 

need new energy sources, and we need businesses to profit to maintain the economy and create jobs, but we also need to 

All Both emc0001GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-647

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

protect the environment. In exchange for profit, business and land owners must be held responsible for the costs of 

mitigation for harm to the environment.

84. BLM must recognize that oil and gas operators can develop resources across the range of the GSG in an environmentally 

sound manner by protecting local populations and habitat while providing the nation with an abundant source of clean, 

affordable, domestic energy

All BLM emc0246GB

85. We are particularly concerned that BLM may choose to incorporate one or all of the conservation measures outlined in the 

Report into the RMP's via this amendment process. Recommendations of particular concern are the four mile no surface 

occupancy (NSO) buffer around leks and the 3% surface disturbance limitation for leases entirely within core sage grouse 

habitat. These restrictions are not supported by science and are much more onerous than even the most restrictive 

management strategies used across the range of the species. Applying an NSO timing stipulation restriction four miles 

around leks on leases will prevent new 011 and gas development and may ultimately result in the infringement of valid lease 

existing rights (see 'Valid Existing Lease Rights' section below).

All Both emc0246GB

86. We request that BLM acknowledge and incorporate recent studies regarding the impact of oil and gas activities or GSG 

viability into the EISs and SEISs. A report entitled "Thresholds of Energy Development and Greater SageGrouse 

Populations," by Taylor, Dzlalak and Clark et al. in 2010 was performed In Wyoming to show the actual impacts of energy 

development on GSG and was conducted using the most current publicly available data on lek attendance in areas with 

full-field development. Contrary to the conclusions reached in other studies, findings contained in this study clearly 

demonstrate that energy development and viable sage-grouse populations can successfully coexist when reasonable 

mitigation measures are utilized during exploration, development and producing activities. The 2011 report entitled "Oil 

and Gas Development and Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): A Review of Threats and Mitigation 

Measures," by Ramey, Brown and Blackgoat is a detailed technical review of previous research regarding general threats of 

oil and gas development to sage grouse and examination of the reliability of various mitigation measures.

All BLM emc0246GB

87. Based on language in the Report, we are concerned that BLM may require oil and natural gas activities to be sited at the 

greatest distance on a lease from a lek. Such a restriction could prevent operators from maximizing oil and natural gas 

recovery across their leasehold despite today's drilling technology and compromise their ability to exercise their valid 

existing rights. The Report also recommends that BLM may suspend non-producing leases without regard for preliminary 

exploratory work and Investment made by operators, which could also compromise valid lease rights.

All BLM emc0246GB

88. The oil and gas industry contributes significantly to the local, state, and national economy, providing billions of dollars each 

year in royalties, bonuses, and severance taxes, besides other benefits of direct capital investment to local economies and 

high paying Jobs. Accordingly, BLM needs to analyze the effect on the local, state and national governments from the loss 

revenue that will arise from the Implementation of the new sage-grouse policies. The analysis should also include but not 

be limited to the loss of jobs and the increase of unemployment compensation.

All BLM emc0246GB

89. The comments presented here are aimed at conserving the Greater Sage-Grouse (sage-grouse) while allowing EI Paso's 

and others' necessary natural gas development projects to be permitted and implemented in an efficient and cost-effective 

manner.

All Both emc0278GB, 

emc0113rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-648 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

90. Natural gas has a prominent role in our nation's energy suppl y, and interstate natural gas pipelines are an integral part of 

tile nation 's energy infrastructure. Natural gas constitutes nearly 25 percent of energy consumption in the United States 

and domestic natural gas demand is expected to grow substantially over the next 20 yea rs.

All Both emc0278GB

91. EI Paso is regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Pipe line and Hazardo us Materials Safety Admin 

istration (PHMSA) for the conveya nce of natural gas. As a result, safely regul ations stipulate that EII>aso maintain various 

safety faci lities (i.e. block va lves) and have access to our facilities on a regular basis. The spacing of these faci lities is 

mandated by the DOT and may on occasion fall within a mapped Pre liminary Priority Habitat (" I>PH") or Pre liminary 

General Habitat ("PGH") sage-grouse area. Any new conse rvation measures must allow for the location of these f<lcil itics 

within habitat areas. In addition, some fac il ities such as compressor stations and meter stat ions have to be located at 

certain points along an existing or new right-of-way (·'ROW"). The locations of these fac ilities are, at limes, restricted due 

to engineering constra ints and safety issues. Any conservation measures should allow the placement of operations and 

maintenance fac ilities within sage-grouse PPH and PGH habitat.

All Both emc0278GB

92. Construction and permitting delays can be cost ly to EI I>aso and its customers. Beyond economic costs, such delays 

underm ine the ind ustry's abi lity to provide safe, secure and rel iable energy supplies needed to support economic growth 

while protect ing both human health and environmental concerns. As wi th other regulatory approval processes, 

compliance with the BLM Resource Management Pl ans is a key factor in accomplishing effic ient perm itting and 

implementation of natural gas projects.

All Both emc0278GB

93. In addition to adhering to its long-standing multiple-use policy, the BLM must also analyze the economic impacts of the 

restriction of energy development and infrastructure as wel l as traditional uses such as grazing through the implementation 

of sage-grouse conservation measures. Many local and regional economics are dependent upon the multiple lIses of the 

public lands and as such deserve a comprehensive economic evaluation of the economic impact of any large-scale, 

range-wide conservation measures.

All Both emc0278GB

94. EI Paso maintains and operates numerous facilities within sage-grouse habitat; our operations staff need to access portions 

of our right-of-ways to conduct emergency repairs, address safety concerns and perform routine maintenance activities. 

On page 11 of the NIT Conservat ion Measures document, the second bullet of the Travel and Transportation section 

indicates that "Travel managemen/ should evalua/e the need for permanent or seasonal road area closures." Provisions 

must to be made in the conservation measures to allow year- round access to the ROW for both safety and maintenance 

issues. In the event roads arc sched uled for closu re, the BLM/FS must be required to coordinate any road or area closures 

with the public and all affected parties such as EI Paso prior to any permanent or seasonal closures to see how thcse 

closures would impact pipeline safety.

All Both emc0278GB

95. While routine maintenance activities can sometimes be scheduled to minimize impacts, emergency and other un scheduled 

activities cannot. The EIS needs to analyze routine pipeline maintenance activities wi thin PPH and PGH habitat and just as 

importantly, allow access into these areas to complete emergency and safety activities. For our facilities located outside of 

identified sage-grouse habitat, our operations staff may need to use exist ing roads thro ugh identified habitat to access 

these facilities. Any proposed conservatio n measures must address this issue.

All Both emc0278GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-649

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

96. On page 13 of 74, thc first bullet states "Make priority sage·grollse habitat areas exclusion areas for new ROWs permits. 

Consider the following exceptions. Within designated ROW corridors encumbered by existing ROW authorizations: new 

ROWs may be co·localed only if the entire footprint of the proposed project (including construction and staging), can be 

compleled within the existing disturbance associated wilh the authorized ROWs." Compliance with this conservation

measure is unrealistic due to safety concerns. When constructing new facilities, EI Paso's strives to maintain a safe working 

distance from existing natural gas pipelines, powerlines and other infrastructure to prevent unintentional incidents 

involving contact with our lines. This offset combined with the amount of construction ROW that is required to safely 

construct new projects might effectively prohibit collocation with existing natural gas pipelines. This measure further

eliminates the potential for placement of any new ROW corridors within identified grousc habitats and virtually climinates 

the potential for any new energy infrastructure throughout the range of the sage·grouse. EI Paso would agree that through 

the use of seasonal timing restrictions and careful route selection, disturbances to these areas could be reduced or 

eliminated. However, a complete eliminat ion of new rights·of·way does not adhere to the BLM pol icy of multiple·use of 

the public lands.

All Both emc0278GB

97. Throughout the West the sage-grouse plays a significant ro le in interstate pipel ine permitting. Addressing sage-grouse 

related issues can be a significant factor in the timely and cost-effective permitting and implementation of natural gas 

projects. Delay and inconsistency resulting from permitting requirements for sage-grouse can be costly to pipeline 

companies like EI Paso and to their customers. As stated previously, EI Paso recognizes the enormity of the scope of this 

project and the short duration of time in which the BLM and Forest Service have to complete this task. EI Paso would 

request that the BLM and Forest Service develop a consistent management policy across the range of the sage-grouse and 

identify conservation measures that will allow much needed energy projects to move forward in a manner that is consistent 

with sage-grouse protections.

All Both emc0278GB

98. Authorities have identified some of the specific impacts resulting from oil and gas development. Habitat fragmentation may 

be one of the worst effects from such activities, resulting from infrastructure associated with the development, including 

access roads. Some authors have speculated that road construction is one of the worst activities associated with energy

development for sage-grouse survival. The Fish and Wildlife Service has noted that these habitat fragmentation impacts may 

have effects on sage-grouse greater than the associated direct habitat losses.

All Both emc0276GB

99. Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats has been cited as a primary cause of the decline of sagegrouse populations because the 

species requires large expanses of contiguous sagebrush. More recently, several studies have documented negative effects 

of fragmentation as a result of oil and gas development and its associated infrastructure on lek persistence, lek attendance,

winter habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival rate, and female nest site choice. “Avoidance of energy 

development at the scale of entire oil and gas fields should not be considered a simple shift in habitat use but rather a 

reduction in the distribution of sage-grouse

All Both emc0276GB

100. Additionally, an increase in human presence near oil and gas development activities can lead to negative impacts on 

sage-grouse, as they seek to avoid the area. Human presence may also lead to a disruption of breeding activities, and is 

sometimes associated with increased hunting and poaching pressure. Additionally, an introduction or increase in traffic may 

lead to collisions and thus result in direct mortalities to sage-grouse. As the Technical Team Report points out, a recently 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-650 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

completed research study in Wyoming revealed that noise from natural gas drilling and roads resulted in a 29% and 73% 

decline respectively in male peak attendance at leks relative to paired controls, and that declines were immediate and 

sustained throughout the experiment with low statistical support for a cumulative effect of noise over time.9 Similarly, 

another study showed that sage-grouse in the Powder River Basin were 1.3 times more likely to occupy winter habitats 

that had not been developed for energy, and avoidance of developed areas was most pronounced when it occurred in 

high-quality winter habitat with abundant sagebrush.

101. The Technical Team Report also offers insight into a revealing study in southwest Wyoming that clearly shows avoidance 

by birds of energy development. It repeats the findings of the study as follows: Long-term studies in the Pinedale Anticline 

Project Area in southwest Wyoming present the most complete picture of cumulative impacts and provide a mechanistic 

explanation for declines in populations. Early in development, nest sites were farther from disturbed than undisturbed leks, 

the rate of next initiations form disturbed leks was 24 percent lower than for birds breeding on undisturbed leks, and 26 

percent fewer females from disturbed leks initiated nests in consecutive years. As development progressed, adult females 

remained in traditional nesting areas regardless of increasing levels of development, but yearlings that had not yet imprinted 

on habitats inside the gas field avoided development by nesting father from roads. The most recent study confirmed that

yearling females avoid infrastructure when selecting nest sites, and yearling males avoided leks inside of development and 

were displaced to the periphery of the gas field. Recruitment of males to leks also declined as distance within the external 

limit of development increased, indicating a high likelihood of lek loss near the center of developed oil and gas fields. The 

most important finding from studies in Pinedale was that sage-grouse declines are explained in part by lower annual survival 

of female sagegrouse and that the impact on survival resulted in a population-level decline. High site fidelity but low survival 

of adult sage-grouse combined with lek avoidance by younger birds resulted in a time lag of 3-4 years between the onset of 

development activities and lek loss. The time lag observed . . . in the Anticline matched that for leks that became inactive 3-4 

years after natural gas development in the Powder River Basin. Analysis of seven oil and gas fields across Wyoming showed 

time lags of 2-10 years between activities associated with energy development and its measurable effects on sage-grouse

populations. Due to these profound effects on sage-grouse from energy development, it is concerning that it affects some 

of the best remaining habitat for sage-grouse. Oil and gas development, with associated infrastructure, is thus a serious 

concern for protecting sage-grouse in this area and must be analyzed fully and dealt with extensively in this EIS process.

All Both emc0276GB

102. Prohibit new oil and gas drilling in priority sage grouse habitat. All Both emc0297GB

103. BLM must recognize that oil and gas operators can develop resources across the range of the GSG in an environmentally 

friendly manner by protecting local populations and habitat while providing the nation with an abundant source of clean 

affordable energy. Over the last several years, Western Energy Alliance members have taken a unique and comprehensive 

approach to working cooperatively with BLM, state wildlife agencies, conservation groups, local working‐groups and others 

to develop sophisticated mitigation measures and reclamation techniques to protect local populations of GSG and their

habitat in areas with oil and gas development. Western Energy Alliance members have significantly invested time and 

resources to partner with the BLM on habitat mitigation due to BLM’s limited staffing and funding.

All BLM emc0312GB

104. In response to the latest GSG status review conducted by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008, Western All BLM emc0312GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-651

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Energy Alliance (then IPAMS) and the American Petroleum Institute submitted a detailed list of conservation and mitigation 

measures implemented by oil and gas operators in GSG range, submitted as Attachment A. BLM must recognize these 

efforts as it develops management policies. Otherwise, BLM will continue to overestimate the impact of oil and natural gas 

development on GSG.

105. We are particularly concerned that BLM may incorporate into the RMPs certain conservation measures outlined in the 

Report, including a four‐mile NSO buffer around leks and 3% surface disturbance limitation for leases entirely within 

priority habitat. These restrictions are not supported by science and are much more onerous than even the most

restrictive management strategies used across the range of the species. Applying a NSO restriction of four miles around 

leks will prevent new oil and gas development and may ultimately result in the infringement of valid existing rights (see 

‘Valid Existing Lease Rights’ below).

All BLM emc0312GB

106. Based on language in the Report, we are concerned that BLM may require oil and natural gas activities to be sited at the 

greatest distance on a lease from a lek. Such a restriction could prevent operators from maximizing oil and natural gas 

recovery across their leasehold and compromise their ability to exercise their valid existing rights. Despite significant 

advances in directional and horizontal drilling technologies, geology and topography still dictates where these technologies 

can be effectively used. Language in the Report also indicates BLM’s intention to suspend non‐producing leases without 

regard to preliminary exploratory work and capital investment, which would also compromise valid lease rights.

All BLM emc0312GB

107. Balancing the development of natural gas and oil resources with the protection of local populations of greater sage‐grouse 

and their habitat in the planning areas will provide significant benefits to local communities, the state, and the nation. 

Western Energy Alliance and its members look forward to continue working cooperatively with the BLM and other 

stakeholders in this planning effort to ensure the balanced use of the resources across the West.

All BLM emc0312GB

108. That subsequent actions made by BLM under the IM could prevent oil & gas operators from developing their valid existing 

lease rights

All Both emc0319GB

109. We request that BLM acknowledge and incorporate recent studies regarding the impact of oil and gas activities on GSG 

viability into the EISs and SEISs. These studies were performed in Wyoming to show the actual impacts of energy 

development on GSG and can be extrapolated to other areas. Contrary to the conclusions reached in other studies,

findings contained in these studies clearly demonstrate that energy development and viable sage-grouse populations can 

successfully coexist when reasonable mitigation measures are utilized during exploration, development and producing 

activities.

All Both emc0319GB

110. The success of lek and nesting locations near existing oil and gas development should be analyzed in the RMP amendments. All Both emc0376GB

111. In addition to the comments submitted by PLA, it is important to note for your serious consideration that the operations 

of the geophysical industry are of such low impact and so temporary in nature, any restrictions such as stand-off radii 

around Sage-Grouse leks should not even be applied to geophysical operations. Further, in the event that such radii are 

applied, those restrictions should only be in force in the morning window when Sage-Grouse mating activity occurs. 

Outside of that window, operations should not be restricted.

All Both rmc0027RM

112. We wish to draw your attention to the Final Report8 titled "Viability Analyses for Conservation of Sage-Grouse All Both rmc0034rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-652 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Populations" dated 27 February 2012 prepared for BLM's Buffalo Field Office. This recent report deals extensively with the 

Coal Bed Methane Production in the Powder River Basin in NE Wyoming and the outbreak of the West Nile Virus in The 

Sage-Grouse populations in this area. Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Production is definitely a factor in the decline and

destruction of sage-grouse habitat in this area, not livestock grazing. Neither is livestock grazing a factor or the cause of the 

West Nile Virus outbreak.

113. The TRCP values our fish & wildlife resources and encourages you and your staff to establish options that ensure 

responsible energy development in a way that sustains sage grouse. The TRCP’s recommendations and priorities regarding

management of fish and wildlife during energy development are organized under the five fundamental areas of Funding, 

Accountability, Coordination, Transparency and Science (FACTS). The IM’s issued must take these areas into account for

the national planning strategy to be successful. In 2006, the TRCP released the “FACTS for Fish and Wildlife,” specific 

recommendations for balancing fish and wildlife needs with the development of energy resources. Revised in 2011, the 

current FACTS document updates those recommendations, expands their applicability to broader geographic regions, and 

addresses forms of energy development beyond traditional oil and gas. The FACTS revision will allow for fish and wildlife

stewardship through better policy and management during energy development. The FACTS recommendations are 

applicable, with a few exceptions, to land and water, traditional or renewable energy, public or private lands, and

infrastructure associated with development. They can increase our ability to responsibly manage fish and wildlife during 

energy development, balance competing values, become conservation stewards and ensure a future for our fish and wildlife

populations. These practices – driven by the FACTS – will sustain and uphold our nation’s shared natural resources and 

unique outdoor legacy.

All Both emc0380GB

114. The Organizations have to question the basic accuracy of the 2010 Charter's summary as only two specific areas under 

BLM regulatory authority were identified as issues possibly impacting the sage grouse. Reviewing the 2010 Conservation 

Charter without reviewing the FWS listing decision could easily lead to the conclusion that all BLM planning was found to 

be equally insufficient in the listing decision. This simply is not the case. The inaccuracy of the Charter will create further 

confusion of priority regulatory issues and allow targeting of low priority management issues, as the 2010 Conservation 

Measures are applied at the field office level. The FWS listing decision specifically states: "However, a regulatory mechanism 

that requires BLM staff to target the protection of key sage-grouse habitats during fire suppression or appropriate fuels 

management activities could help address the threat of wildfire in some situations ..... however, a long-term mechanism is 

necessary given the scale of the wildfire threat and its likelihood to persist on the landscape in the foreseeable future," The 

2010 FWS listing decision further states: "However, BLM's current application of those authorities in some areas falls short 

of meeting the conservation needs of the species. This is particularly evident in the regulation of oil, gas, and other energy 

development activities, both on BLM administered lands and on split-estate lands."

All Both rmc0033GB

115. Rowland et al. (2006:1-6) encapsulated the level of threat to sage grouse habitats from oil and gas development as follows: 

A recently compiled inventory of onshore oil and natural gas reserves on federal lands focused on 5 geologic basins that 

contain the vast majority of these reserves in the 48 contiguous United States (U.S. Departments of the Interior, 

Agriculture, and Energy 2003). Four of the basins are centered in the Rocky Mountain region and extend across much of 

Wyoming, as well as parts of Colorado, Montana, and Utah (Fig. 1.3). These 4 basins also encompass 5 of the 7 “focus 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-653

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

areas” that were given highest national priority for inventory related to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, due to the 

exceptional concentrations of oil and gas reserves found there (U.S. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy 

2003). Overlying these basins is one of the largest remaining expanses of sagebrush in western North America; the 

Wyoming Basins Ecoregion alone contains 18.3 million acres of sagebrush (Fig. 1.2), or 17% of all sagebrush in the United 

States (Knick et al. 2003). The extensive landscapes dominated by sagebrush in this area in turn support some of the largest 

extant populations of sagebrush obligates, such as greater sagegrouse and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), in the 

United States (Clark and Stromberg 1987, Connelly et al. 2004).” P. 1-6. In effect, displacement of sage grouse from 

preferred habitats due to energy development is virtually as bad as outright direct mortality. According to Naugle et al. 

(2006:11), “Avoidance [of industrial zones] is typically detrimental to populations because individuals are forced into 

sub-optimal habitats where vital rates decline (i.e., survival and reproduction), which in turn negatively influences 

population growth rate, size, and persistence, and generally leaves populations with little capacity to respond to new 

stressors (e.g., West Nile virus).”

116. When the State of Wyoming embarked upon its groundbreaking sage grouse Core Area policy, it started with the right 

idea, identifying core habitats that supported the most abundant populations of sage grouse, and prioritizing these areas for

protection. However, because a consensus-based collaborative group (the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team or “Team”) 

was appointed by Governor Freudenthal to identify Core Areas and prescribe the conservation measures that applied 

there, representatives from the oil industry appointed to the Team were able to extract biologically inappropriate 

concessions, both in terms of removing key habitats from Core Areas and in creating loopholes and lowering protection 

levels that apply both within and outside the Core Areas. As a result, some Core Areas excluded key sage grouse habitats, 

and other lands that should have been Core Areas by virtue of having the highest densities of sage grouse were excluded 

entirely from the designations, especially in the Powder River Basin (Buffalo Field Office) and along the Atlantic Rim in the 

Rawlins Field office. As a result, the Core Areas designated in the Powder River Basin likely are inadequate to prevent the 

extirpation of the species in this key linkage between populations in Montana and the Dakotas and the heart of the sage 

grouse range. A Population Viability Analysis recently commissioned by BLM for the Powder River Basin indicates that as 

well densities increase to 8 wells per square mile, a single West Nile virus outbreak is predicted to cause the functional 

extinction of this population across the Basin. See Attachment 2. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and the Sage 

Grouse Plan Amendments should address this problem directly by increasing the number of Core Areas to include the 

remaining high-density sage grouse lek complexes and expanding existing Core Areas. Populations elsewhere within Core 

Areas are likely to decline or even disappear if industrial development proceeds there under current guidelines. These 

crippling weaknesses in the Wyoming plan render it unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny as an adequate conservation 

measure. The federal government can and should do better for federal lands.

All Both emc0343GB

117. In winter, sage grouse select large expanses of sagebrush with gentle topography and avoided conifer, riparian, and energy 

development (Doherty 2008). Well density had an additional effect in this study (id.). Sage grouse were 30% more likely to 

use winter habitat if CBM development was not present (id.). There was a landscape-scale effect of habitat selection, with 

areas with greater sagebrush at a 4 km2 scale receiving greater winter use (id.). Carpenter et al. (2010) found a similar 

relationship in Alberta, and found that grouse avoided oil and gas wells by 1.9 km and also showed some avoidance of jeep 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-654 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

trails. Bruce et al. (2011) found that sage grouse moved widely across winter habitats, using an area of 1,480 km2, and 

recommended setting aside large reserves for winter habitats. According to Doherty (2008:22), “Identifying and setting 

aside areas of undeveloped, high-quality habitat within the project area should be top priority.” Doherty (2008:22) 

asserted, “My spatially explicit winter habitat model can be used to identify areas in the PRB that provide the best remaining 

habitat for sage-grouse in winter.” BLM should apply this model to the Powder River Basin and place areas predicted to be 

the best remaining sage grouse winter habitat off-limits to future oil and gas leasing, in addition to placing strong restrictions 

on the level of development that is allowed on existing leases. Similar protocols should be developed and followed 

throughout the remainder of the sage grouse range.

118. Oil and gas development poses perhaps the greatest single threat to sage grouse persistence across the eastern half of its 

range. Taylor et al. (2010) found that in Montana, oil and gas development eclipsed agricultural tillage and West Nile virus 

as the most destructive factor facing sage grouse populations there. Walker et al. (2007) found that sage grouse habitat 

within 4 miles of a lek site was important to the persistence of the lek. Conversely, Walker et al. (2007) concluded that leks 

heavily impacted by oil and gas development “typically became inactive within 3-4 years.” Harju et al. (2008) found a time 

lag of 2-10 years post-development, at which point negative effects became evident. The same is true for winter habitats. 

Indeed, Naugle et al. (2006) found that a model using habitat variables and coalbed methane development provided a near 

perfect fit for grouse distribution data. In the Powder River Basin, CBM well density within a 4 km2 area provided the best 

fit for modeling sage grouse habitat use (Doherty et al. 2008). Taylor et al. (2012) found the strongest relationship between

sage grouse population persistence and density of producing wells was at a 12.4-mile radius. In addition to the impacts from 

direct disturbance, oil and gas development is correlated with elevated predator activity, which in turn depresses 

reproductive success (Bui et a. 2010, Dzialek et al. 2011).

All Both emc0343GB

119. The area closest to a sage grouse lek is crucial to both the breeding activities and nesting success of local sage grouse 

populations. One scientist described the lek site as “the hub from which nesting occurs” (Autenreith 1985). Grouse exhibit 

strong fidelity to individual lek sites from year to year (Dunn and Braun 1986). During the spring period, male habitat use 

is concentrated within 2 km of lek site (Benson et al. 1991). A Montana study found that no male sage grouse traveled 

farther than 1.8 km from a lek during the breeding season (Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974). Other researchers found that 

10 of 13 hens nested within 1.9 miles of the lek site during the first year of their southern Idaho study, with an average 

distance of 1.7 miles from the lek site; 100% of hens nested within 2 miles of the lek site during the second year of this study, 

with an average distance from lek of 0.5 mile (Hulet et al. 1986). In Montana, Wallestad and Pyrah (1974) found that 73% 

of nests were built within 2 miles of the lek, but only one nest occurred within 0.5 mile of the lek site. Holloran (2005) 

found that 64% of sage grouse nested within 3.1 miles of a lek in western Wyoming, and Walker et al. (2007) found that 

sage grouse habitat within 4 miles of a lek site was important to the persistence of the lek. Doherty (2008) found that 97% 

of sage grouse nests were within 10 km (6.21 miles) of a lek. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) found a curvilinear relationship in 

which 90% of nests were predicted within 10 km of a lek. This is significant because Dzialek et al. (2011) found that nests 

closer to wells were at greater risk of nest failure, likely due to increased predation associated with anthropomorphic 

disturbance, and recommended that new oil and gas well be sited at least 1.6 km from the nearest nesting habitat.

All Both emc0343GB

120. According to Doherty (2008:51-52), “Impacts of energy development to sage-grouse populations are well documented All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-655

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

(Naugle et al. in press) but nesting response to full development could not be thoroughly investigated here because severity 

of CBNG development to leks in the PRB (Walker et al. 2007:52) left too few birds to monitor inside gas fields. The best 

energy development predictor for birds that nested on the edge or within low levels of CBNG development increased 

model fit (-16.72 units) of my AIC best habitat model (Table 4). This finding is equivocal because an independent test of this 

model did not support inclusion of distance to road to the AIC best habitat model. My inability to validate findings or 

capture large samples of sage-grouse in fully developed fields is not surprising because Holloran et al. (2007) reported high 

female nest site fidelity, but lower survival of nesting adult sage-grouse in gas fields combined with avoidance of 

infrastructure by yearlings resulted in a time lag of 3-4 years between the onset of development activities and lek loss 

(Holloran 2005). The time lag observed by Holloran (2005) in the Pinedale Anticline in southwest Wyoming matched that 

for leks that became inactive 3-4 years following CBNG development in the PRB (Walker et al. 2007).” It is therefore 

critical to protect not just the lek itself, but a substantial amount of the nesting habitat surrounding the lek, through No 

Surface Occupancy buffers. We recommend, based on the findings of Holloran, NSO buffers of 2 miles around the lek with 

additional Timing Limitation Stipulations extending 3 miles from the lek during the breeding and nesting season.

121. Nesting activities can also be impacted. In a study near Pinedale, sage grouse from disturbed leks where gas development 

occurred within 3 km of the lek site showed lower nesting rates (and hence lower reproduction), traveled farther to nest, 

and selected greater shrub cover than grouse from undisturbed leks (Lyon 2000). According to this study, impacts of oil 

and gas development to sage grouse include (1) direct habitat loss from new construction, (2) increased human activity and 

pumping noise causing displacement, (3) increased legal and illegal harvest, (4) direct mortality associated with reserve pits, 

and (5) lowered water tables resulting in herbaceous vegetation loss. Pump and compressor noise from oil and gas 

development may reduce the effective range of grouse vocalizations; low-frequency noise from wind turbines could have a 

similar effect. A consortium of eminent sage grouse biologists recommended, “Energy-related facilities should be located 

>3.2 km from active leks” (Connelly et al. 2000). And Dr. Clait Braun, one of the world’s most eminent experts on sage 

grouse, has recommended even larger NSO buffers of 3 miles from lek sites, based on the uncertainty of protecting sage 

grouse nesting habitat with smaller buffers. Holloran (2005) found that active drilling of a well within 3.1 miles of a lek had 

a negative impact on lek attendance, while the presence of a producing well (absent construction/drilling activity) within 1.9 

miles of a lek had a significant negative effect on lek attendance. Walker et al. (2007) found that sage grouse habitat within 

4 miles of a lek site was important to the persistence of the lek. Conversely, Walker et al. (2007) concluded that leks heavily 

impacted by oil and gas development typically became inactive within 3-4 years.” Harju et al. (2010) examined effect of 

distance from well(s) on lek attendance and found variable results in different study areas. According to Harju et al. (2010), 

in the Moxa area, significant negative impacts extended out to Xmile from leks; in the Wamsutter area, negative impacts of 

wells extended out to Umile from leks; in the Pinedale area, negative impacts extended out to 1 mile; in the Bighorn Basin 

and Powder River areas, significant effects extended all the way out to 2Umiles, which was the maximum distance studied. 

Meanwhile, in the Sage Hen (Wind River Basin) and Shirley (Basin) sites, no significant effects were found, with no leks 

within Xmile of development for Sage Hen or within Umile of leks for Shirley. Holloran et al. (2010) found that yearling 

females avoided nesting within 950m of wells, while yearling males avoided leks near energy infrastructure, and those that 

did lek near oil and gas wells had a higher mortality rate and lower probability of establishing a breeding territory. We 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-656 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

recommend a 4-mile NSO with well density limitations of 1 pad per square mile inside Core Areas.

122. Leks must be buffered from wellfield roads Road construction related to energy development is a primary impact on sage 

grouse habitat from habitat fragmentation and direct disturbance perspectives. Rowland et al. (2006: 5-10) modeled sage 

grouse distribution, and reached the following conclusions: “The secondary road network is a highly significant factor 

influencing processes in this landscape and is being developed and expanded rapidly across much of the WBEA. Secondary 

roads are being built as part of the infrastructure to support non-renewable energy extraction. For example, within the 

Jonah Field in the Upper Green River Valley, >95% of the area had road densities >2 i/mi2.” (Internal citations omitted). 

Furthermore, “The dominant feature affecting output of the sage-grouse disturbance model was secondary roads, which 

occupy nearly 8% of the study area (Table 5.2) and are presumed to negatively influence an even larger extent.” Pp. 6-15 

through 16. Holloran (2005) found significant impacts of road traffic on sage grouse habitat use in the Pinedale Anticline gas 

field, concluding that habitat effectiveness declined in areas adjacent to roads with increasing vehicle traffic, documenting 

the secondary effect referenced by Rowland et al (2006). Roads should be restricted from being built within 2 miles of 

leks. For already-existing roads, a seasonal “lock-out/gate-out” policy should be enforced between March and July. There 

is precedent for the in the Bill Barrett Big Porcupine CBM Field on the Thunder Basin National Grassland, in which by 

Settlement Agreement roads within 2 miles of leks are closed each spring, and operator access during this period is via 

bicycle. The Lander Resource Management Plan Draft EIS has similar restrictions in the agency’s Preferred Alternative, 

under which Timing Limitation Stipulations apply not only to drilling and construction activities but also to all disruptive 

activities throughout the life of the field.

All Both emc0343GB

123. Well density limits should be imposed to supplement NSO buffers Holloran (2005) found that when wellfields reached 

densities greater than one well per 699 acres reduced the breeding populations of males at lek sites. Doherty (2008) 

determined that there was a significant decline in lek populations statewide once wells exceeded 1 well per square mile, but 

was unable to detect a statistically significant difference at well densities below 1 per square mile. Specifically, the analysis 

showed a 17% increase in lek inactivity at the 4-year time lag state, but this increase was statistically insignificant when the 

data from Zones I and II were pooled. Notably, when the analysis was restricted to Zone II (southwestern Wyoming), a 

statistically significant 14% increase in lek inactivity with the 4-year time lag was detected at low densities of wells (1-12 

wells per 32 km2). It is notable that when leks that switched from low-welldensity (1-12/30 ha) to medium or higher (13+), 

there was no longer a statistically significant difference. Doherty acknowledged (at p. 77) that low sample sizes in all 

categories other than control lead to a higher likelihood of a Type II error, in which differences exist but are not identified 

as statistically significant. This analysis did not test the impact of distance to wells or distance to roads at all, and thus no 

conclusions can be inferred about the impacts of wells and roads sited close to leks at low densities of wells. These findings 

were later published as Doherty et al. (2010). Harju et al. (2010) found that lek population declines ranged from 13% to 79% 

at 4 to 8 wellpads per square mile, depending on locale.

All Both emc0343GB

124. These measures are minimal, and ineffective. We note that BLM did not even bother to include BMPs for industrial wind, 

solar development, or transmission in the NTT, and its previous 2010 IM and other policies for these are completely 

inadequate. However, we use examples from some recent renewable energy project proposals to illustrate the 

inadequacies of these BMPs for all kinds of development in sagebrush habitats. Industrial renewable energy projects sited on 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-657

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

public land often have colossal impacts and a huge disturbance Footprint similar to oil and gas and industrial geothermal 

development. The guidance is limited, loose and uncertain. It cannot be considered effective. Example: Design roads to 

an "appropriate" standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended purpose. This means a freeway could 

be built "to appropriate standards" if the developer said they needed a freeway. Do not issue rights-of-way ..unless.. BLM 

uses words like "unless" - always giving itself and pliant managers facing political pressures to approve projects the ability to 

do so. Exceptions should not be granted. The word "shall"must be used. Under "operations", BLM would "cluster 

disturbances". Yet the core and priority schemes allow large-scale linear disturbances 3%-5% of additional habitat with an 

immense footprint to slice through "priority" habitats, and uncontrolled sacrifice of general habitats.

125. How does directional and horizontal drilling affect aquifers and the spring and riparian areas whose surface expression is 

linked to them? How will water tables be impacted? Will waters essential for wildlife or human uses be polluted? How does 

punching pond after pond into areas with shallow water tables or aquifers, as described in the previous Appendix disrupt 

hydrological systems?

All BLM emc0411GB

126. Why not require noise shields at all times of the year, not just when drilling and during some periods? Why is BLM allowing 

drilling during nesting, and wintering periods for any reason? This means not just noise intrusion, but also flushing birds 

from human activity - thus making them more vulnerable to predation, and displacing them. Here is an example of where 

older land use plans are typically better than the newer ones - and amending them, for example, to put in place such a 

toothless noise provision would eliminate the more protective standard old LUP seasonal avoidance of intrusion into 

breeding and wintering habitats. We have frequently seen that wildlife protection language in some MFPs and older RMPs 

is actually stronger than the recent weak, ineffective RMP measures - which this NTT list largely parrots. Time after time, 

in energy development EAs (wind, transmission) BLM is using these laundry lists of uncertain BMPs to avoid stopping all 

disturbances during sensitive periods. The Forest’s grazing EIS’s overflow with similar loose, uncertain BMP lists.

All BLM emc0411GB

127. Appropriate No Surface Occupancy buffers for leks are needed Walker et al. (2007) found that coalbed methane 

development within 2 miles of a sagegrouse lek had a negative effect on lek attendance. Holloran (2005) found that active 

drilling within 3.1 miles of a lek reduced breeding populations, while wells already constructed and drilled within 1.9 miles 

of the lek reduced breeding populations. In Canada, Carpenter et al. (2010) found that sage grouse strongly avoided oil and 

gas infrastructure to a distance of 1.9 km, and avoided two-track vehicle trails more weakly to a distance of 1.5 km; the 

closest that a grouse was located to a coalbed methane well in this study was 1,293m. Harju et al (2008) found that negative 

impacts of development on lek populations extended 4.8 km (3 miles) from the development. Both Holloran (2005) and 

Walker et al. (2007) documented the extirpation of breeding populations at active leks as a result of oil and gas 

development in the Upper Green River Valley and Powder River Basin, respectively. Rowland et al. (2006: A4-3 through 

A4-7) provide a useful literature review of the distance that impacts spread beyond the edge of disturbed areas into 

adjacent habitats. Males use shrubs <1 km (0.6 mi) from a lek for foraging, loafing, and shelter (Rothenmaier 1979, Emmons 

and Braun 1984, Autenrieth 1981). In Wyoming, State and BLM policies erroneously use this as a basis for an 0.6-mile No 

Surface Occupancy buffer around leks. However, there is no science to indicate that preventing wells within 0.6 mile of a 

lek will eliminate negative population impacts on sage grouse. In fact, the 1.9-mile buffer is the minimum amount found to 

be needed to avoid negative impacts to breeding grouse by Holloran (2005), and indeed, to protect the nesting hens that 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-658 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

site their nests within 5 miles of a lek, an even larger buffer may be needed.

128. A number of researchers have noted a time lag between initiation of mineral development and sage grouse population 

declines. Holloran et al. (2010) noted that yearling males avoided lekking near oil and gas infrastructure, and that yearling 

females avoided nesting within 950m of oil and gas infrastructure. Thus, the time lag in populations appears to be driven by 

the exodus of yearlings from affected areas, while older birds persist close to development until they die off. These 

researchers stated, “Our results...suggest to land managers that current stipulations on development ay not provide 

management solutions.”

All Both emc0343GB

129. As a rule, breeding and nesting activity are concentrated in the habitats surrounding the lek site. In a Montana study, 

Wallestad and Schladweiler (1974) found that no male sage grouse traveled farther than 1.8 km from a lek during the 

breeding season. But following breeding, males may make long migrations to distant summer ranges (Connelly et al. 1988). 

Hulet et al. (1986) found that 10 of 13 hens nested within 1.9 miles of the lek site during the first year of their southern 

Idaho study, with an average distance of 1.7 miles from the lek site; 100% of hens nested within 2 miles of the lek site during 

the second year of this study, with an average distance from lek of 0.5 mile. In Montana, Wallestad and Pyrah (1974) found 

that 73% of nests were built within 2 miles of the lek, but only one nest occurred within 0.5 mile of the lek site. But in Bates 

Hole, Wyoming, Holloran (1999) found that average nesting distance from lek site was 3.25 km for adults and 5.27 km for 

yearlings. Wakkinen et al. (1992) cautioned that leks were poor predictors of sage grouse nest sites; although 92% of sage 

grouse nested within 3.2 km of a lek in this study, sage grouse did not necessarily nest near the same lek where breeding 

took place. Lyon (2000) pointed out that quarter-mile lek buffers were insufficient to maintain the viability of grouse 

populations. Several years ago, a multi-state group of fish and game biologists evaluated the standard BLM mitigation 

measures for grouse (at the time, quarter-mile No Surface Occupance around leks with a two-mile Timing Limitation 

Stipulation for leks that prevented drilling and construction activity during breeding and nesting periods, but permitted 

production-related activity), and found them wholly inadequate (Christiansen and Bohne 2007). Connelly et al. (2000) 

recommended that sage grouse habitat should be protected within 3.2 km of lek sites under ideal habitat conditions, within 

5 km when habitat conditions are not ideal, and within 18 km where sage grouse populations are migratory. Furthermore, 

these researchers stated that in areas where 40% or more of the original breeding habitat has been lost, all remaining 

habitat should be protected. Holloran (2005) provided a critical test of BLM’s lek buffers’ effectiveness in the Jonah and 

Pinedale Anticline fields, and found that in the face of fullfield gas development, finding that extirpation was expected for 

sage grouse in both fields within 19 years if conditions remained the same (and, of course, conditions have become much 

worse for grouse under the continued intensification of drilling and road construction in these two fields).

All Both emc0343GB

130. (Walker 2008:181). At present, radio-marking of sage grouse is not widespread in the Powder River Basin, and even the 

current level of radio-marking bird may not continue as current studies are reaching (or have reached) their conclusions. 

Given the cyclical nature of sage grouse population trends, West Nile presents the archetypal example of a stochastic event 

that could spell extirpation for fragmented populations: “The impact of WNv during a string of low-survival or 

low-productivity years may be severe” (Walker 2008:182). With this in mind, the Sage Grouse Plan Amendments should 

include strong measures to prevent an increase in Culex habitat in and near Core Areas. Walker et al. (2010) 

recommended reducing man-man water sources as a means of reducing the threat of West Nile virus. Specifically, we 

All Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-659

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

recommend that surface disposal of produced water from coalbed methane or other oil and gas operations should be 

prohibited within 20 miles of designated Priority Habitats, and CBM-related water storage reservoirs need to be drained 

and breached to avoid creating habitat for the Culex mosquito, which carries West Nile virus. This is eminently feasible, as 

there are several other disposal options. First, the water could be injected underground, into aquifers of equal or lower 

quality to protect groundwater supplies and comply with state laws. Second, the water could be treated and piped to 

municipal water facilities, without ever collecting on the surface. For low-volume water producing wells, holding all water 

in condensate tanks and trucking it to municipal treatment facilities may be an option. These are measures which do not 

appear to have been considered in the Wyoming sage grouse strategy to date, yet are crucially important because a 

population of grouse that is able to persist due to limitations on direct habitat destruction does not contribute to the 

overall survival of the species if it is then wiped out by an outbreak of West Nile virus.

131. Sage grouse standards for wind and transmission lines Wind power generation represents a clean, renewable alternative 

to fossil fuels, but construction of wind farms in key habitats is likely to lead to unacceptable levels of impact. Although 

there is little published science directly addressing the impact of wind turbines or transmission lines on sage grouse, there

is a broad consensus among biologists that sage grouse avoid tall structures (such as wind turbines and transmission 

towers) and abandon adjacent habitats. One unpublished study found that sage grouse habitat use increased with distance 

(up to 600 meters) from transmission lines. It is notable that modern perch inhibitors emplaced on transmission lines result 

in a major decrease, but not elimination, of raptor perching (Slater and Smith 2010). Molvar (2008) compiled BLM data from 

a wind power project on Cotterel Mountain, Idaho and was able to determine that the erection of seven meteorological 

towers led to drastic declines in sage grouse populations across nine sage grouse leks, while populations in the surrounding 

area remained stable. See Attachment 5. There has been abundant scientific information that other types of energy 

development, particularly oil and gas, has a major impact on sage grouse populations, and oil and gas development has some 

similar features such as habitat fragmentation and tall structures (in the form of drilling rigs).

All Both emc0343GB

132. Sage grouse do not use cheatgrass. Invasive species was identified as a threat to sage grouse by three expert panels and in 

recent reviews (Connelly et al. 2011, Table 1). One panel listed cheatgrass as the most important threat to sage grouse in 

the western portion of its range (70 Fed. Reg. 2267), where it has invaded much of the lower elevation, xeric sagebrush 

habitat (Miller et al. 2011). Land uses such as livestock grazing (Reisner 2010), off-road vehicle use, and coalbed methane 

development (Bergquist et al. 2007), can facilitate cheatgrass incursion in sagebrush steppe.

All Both emc0343GB

133. Adaptive Management is a poor management tool for sage grouse When energy development moves in, the sage grouse 

move out, but not always immediately. Holloran (2005) was the first to document time lags in sage grouse declines 

following energy development, finding a four-year post-development decline tied to emigration of yearlings and lower 

survival of the older females who stayed in developed areas, showing strong nest-area fidelity. Kaiser (2006) also found that 

yearlings tend to abandon developed oil and gas fields. Doherty et al. (2010) corroborated this 4-year time lag with 

statewide data. Harju et al. (2010) found that the time lag of maximum decline ranged from 2 to 9 years depending on 

locale, and in two study areas no time lag (effectively, instantaneous decline) was found. In addition, it can be very difficult 

to remove heavy industrial equipment if negative wildlife trends are shown; usually it is too late to undo a gas field or wind 

farm at a later date. The BLM should be wary of relying heavily on adaptive management, as declines that trigger 

All BLM emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-660 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

management corrections may occur years after conditions have changed irreversibly, and thus the opportunity for 

corrective action may be missed for lack of immediate population response.

134. We recommend that all sage grouse ACECs be withdrawn from oil and gas leasing and recommended for withdrawal of all 

leasable and locatable surface minerals from mining.

All BLM emc0343GB

135. Oil and Gas Inside Core Areas • Maximum density of 1 wellpad or other surface disturbance per square mile in core 

habitats • For future leasing, either no future leasing in core habitats or No Surface Occupancy leases with no opportunity 

for exceptions or waivers. • For existing leases, no surface occupancy within 2 miles of the lek or winter habitat and no 

drilling within 3 miles of the lek or winter habitats during the season of use. • Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry; 

no surface mining or in situ uranium recovery allowed. • Total surface disturbance not to exceed 1 to 3 percent of surface 

area. Outside Core Areas • Year-round No Surface Occupancy within 2 miles of the lek or winter habitat, and no drilling 

within 3 miles of the lek or winter habitat during the season of use.

All Both emc0343GB

136. At minimum, the NEPA analysis should address the following: • Requiring underground injection of produced water to 

prevent the construction of reserve pits that serve as breeding grounds for Culex spp. mosquitoes that are carriers of 

West Nile virus.

All Both emc0343GB

137. At minimum, the NEPA analysis should address the following: • Requiring mandatory use of closed-loop (pitless) drilling 

to reduce wellpad size and habitat loss.

All Both emc0343GB

138. 1) Policy changes are needed in areas of high biological value and high risk of energy development, to manage leasing and 

permitting of oil and gas development on federal lands and to proactively site future wind developments (2) rapid 

implementation of conservation is needed to enhance populations in high-value biological areas without energy potential, 

and (3) restoration of fringe habitats and low density areas with limited risk is needed to promote connectivity. This 

model also promotes rapid sacrifice of intact occupied sage-grouse habitats under its segregation scheme. Just how is risk 

determined? Is it determined by letting industries get areas they want – and writing those areas off? And for the small 

populations – what are the criteria used to sacrifice/doom one, but not another? In the study area: 44% of the lands that 

the federal government has authority to control for oil and gas development (seven of 16,000,000 ha) has been authorized 

for exploration and development (Naugle et al., this volume).

All Both emc0411GB

139. I am very concerned about the impact on sage-grouse of the rapid growth of gas and oil development in the West. The 

scientific report prepared for the BLM last year, 'Report on National Greater Sage- Grouse Conservation Measures', made 

it clear that many changes in current practices need to be made. These include protecting sage-grouse habitat from large 

scale disturbances, limiting disturbance to one per section with less than 3% of the section's surface area, reducing road 

density, only permitting transmission lines away from the critical habitat, etc.

All Both emc0185rm

140. Don't allow new oil & gas drilling in priority sage grouse habitat. Use directional drilling from existing drill pads. All Both flf0000gb 

flf0000rm

141. I urge you to consider coordinated plan ammendments that will : prohibit new oil and gas drilling in priority sage grouse 

habitat;

All Both flg0000gb, 

flg0000rm

142. We are already seeing this conflict arise in Routt County, as a permit hearing is scheduled for tomorrow in which an All Both flm00009rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-661

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

exemption has been granted for a company to drill during the mating season in order to fulfill their contract. This is a 

deplorable action and it is inexcusable to put corporate needs ahead of environmental integrity. We need tougher 

standards and more importantly, enforcement in order to preserve this critical species.

143. The proposed Sage Grouse EIS is unfair to the people on this land. Approxamately 80% at the Little Snake Resource Area 

is already leased for Oil & Gas development with very minimal Sage Grouse stipulations. Those leases are valid existing 

rights and cannot be altered.

CO Both cfc0006RM

144. Where as Grazing Permits are defined as a privelege and will be altered. The Grazing Permittes and surface owner will bear 

the brunt of protecting the sage grouse and be sacrificed for the benefit of oil & gas and other users.

CO Both cfc0006RM

145. On February 2, 2010, we submitted written comments to BLM on the nomination and potential oil and gas development of 

federal mineral parcels identified in the August 20 II Colorado Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale (Parcels 5904, 5934, 

5935 and 5936) that underlie the Ranch (Stolz February Comments). The Kremmling Field Office (KFO) recommended 

that all of Parcels 5934 and 5936 and portions of Parcels 5904 and 5935 be withdrawn or deferred in recognition of Greater 

Sage-Grouse (sage-grouse) concerns. On March 24, 2011, as part of the lease sale Environmental Assessment (EA) process, 

we submitted detailed comments, supported by expert reports, on the remaining acres in Parcel 5904 (T2N, R81W, 

Section 6, Lots 8-19, approximately 240 acres) and Parcel 5935 (T3N, R81 W, Section 31, Lots 1-4 and SESW, 

approximately 212 acres) demonstrating that these parcels also provide critical sage-grouse habitat and have other

resource values that make them unsuitable for oil and gas development. See Stolz eta! "Comments on August 2011 

Competitive O&G Lease Sale Environmental Assessment: DOI-BLM-LLCON02000-20ll-0016-EA" (Stolz EA Comments). 

The Stolz February Comments and Stolz EA Comments are incorporated by reference.

CO BLM emc0057RM

146. Sage-grouse Breeding (Lek) Habitat - All BLM split estate federal parcels are located within approximately 6.4 km of an 

active sage-grouse lek and negative impacts of energy development to male lck attendance have been documented out to 

18 km from lek. Negative impacts of energy development have been documented out to 6.4 km from a lek. Exhibit 1, Ex. 

B. at 2 to R. Watson's Comment Letter. Female sage-grouse breeding on leks disturbed by access roads nest farther from 

the lek, have lower nest initiation rates and lower annual survival. !d. at l.

CO BLM emc0057RM

147. Sage-grouse Late Brood-Rearing and Summer Habitats -Potential suitable sagegrouse late brood-rearing habitats exist 

within all of BLM split estate parcels. Important sage-grouse brooding habitat generally includes wet areas such as

meadows, springs, ponds and streams plus a 200-m zone around these water features. The mesic cover classes from the 

Colorado Vegetation Classification Project support a professional conclusion that the parcels include potential late

brood-rearing habitat. Female sage-grouse breeding or nesting near oil and gas development have decreased summer 

survival. Brood-rearing female sage-grouse avoid areas with high densities of visible wells within 1 km. Chick survival also

decreases. ld. at 2.

CO BLM emc0057RM

148. Dr. Holloran concludes that, "research suggests that oil or gas development within sagebmsh habitats on or near [Proposed 

Tyler Mountain ACEC) would fall within the spatial scale where persistence of sage-grouse populations residing on the 

[Proposed Tyler Mountain ACEC] would likely be jeopardized." Exhibit 11, Cover Memo at 1-2 to R. Watson's Comment 

Letter. Oil and gas development on one of only two areas in the State that host sage-grouse populations not influenced by 

oil and gas makes no sense given BLM 's policy to treat the sage-grouse as listed and to maintain and improve habitat.

CO BLM emc0057RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-662 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

149. We are very concerned about the lack of scientific validity for the parameters and conditions currently proposed by the 

BLM in the DRMP/DEIS. It is clear that the approach that is currently practiced and proposed has not done anything to stem 

the steep downward trajectory of the sage grouse population. Accordingly, we implore the BLM to place NSO restrictions 

on all areas designated as sage grouse priority (or core) habitat. It is imperative that there is no leasing activity within these 

critical areas and significant protections should be afforded to undisturbed continuous unfragmented habitat given that its 

scarcity. Furthermore, in areas designated as sage grouse occupied habitat, there should be minimal disturbance allowed -

not more than 1% within 4 miles in any direction of a lek. All human disturbances (roads, ditches, buildings, hay meadows, 

and any other disturbance that deviates from the native sage bmsh vegetation) should count toward the percentage of 

disturbed area. Split estate parcels should be given at least the same protections as BLM owned fee parcels. It is illogical to 

afford them any less protections.

CO BLM emc0057RM

150. Because of constantly improving technology utilized by the oil and gas companies, the language of 20 or 40 acre spacing is 

quickly becoming archaic. With directional drilling and dependent on depth and subsurface geology, producers can and do 

approach or exceed effective 20 acre spacing off of one pad in a section. It is not uncommon to see well pads with 24 

individual wells and even some with up to 32. Horizontal drilling and sequential fracing techniques are game changers, the 

impact of which we are just beginning to appreciate. Any discussion of restrictions of surface occupancy or development 

thresholds should include the new reality of being able to continue to extract the oil and gas resource from the areas being 

developed through new technology. This may take a portion of the economic sting out of NSO restrictions.

CO Both emc0061RM

151. Lastly, any study of impacts to grouse in Rio Blanco and Garfield counties must include a thorough discussion of the 

anticipated impacts of Oil Shale development. These two counties are ground zero for oil shale development with 5 of the 

6 national RDD leases being located in the PPR area and two more to come in the near future. Even with just the 

development of those RDD leases, without further commercial development, there are potentially significant impacts to 

grouse in this area from oil shale related activities.

CO Both emc0061RM

152. Wexpro supports the BLM and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife' s efforts to protect Sage Grouse, and certainly 

understands the importance of conserving, maintaining and enhancing Sage Grouse habitat. We believe that, with proper 

planning, continued oil and gas development can co-exist with the conversation of wildlife and wildlife habitat.

CO BLM emc0073RM

153. Wexpro and its predecessor operating companies have operated and developed oil and gas leases in the Hiawatha and 

Powder Wash areas since the late 1920's. During this time we have been able to work in cooperation with both federal and 

state agencies to further development while protecting wildlife habitat and preserving archeological finds during site 

construction. Recently, the Little Snake Field Office and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife department consulted with 

Wexpro in adjusting some proposed staked sites for future drilling. Habitat will be preserved in this instance through the 

cooperation of Wexpro and these agencies. Specifically, of four staked locations, one was moved closer to a county road, 

two will be accessed from a reasonable expansion of existing locations, and only one site was left as proposed. With the 

new Sage Grouse proposed EIS, and specifically the Priority Habitat mapping in our existing fields, Wexpro is concerned 

that we may lose the flexibility to work with these same agencies where ground-level decisions are more in the public 

interest and are generally more effective in protecting Sage Grouse habitat. Wexpro will always be willing to adjust its 

development and take any mitigation measures necessary to protect wildlife and the environment in general, through 

CO Both emc0073RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-663

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

location changes, wildlife timing stipulations, and proactive reclamation.

154. We hope that the BLM and Colorado State agencies will continue to see the importance of cooperation with oil and gas 

operators, with attendant on-site review, reasonable conditions of approval, and continuous monitoring of actual 

disturbance and reclamation.

CO BLM emc0073RM

155. Major concerns about the proposed LSFO plan include the following: 1. The plan does not set any high-priority habitat aside 

from development. 2. The plan does not adequately protect greater sage-grouse from the impacts of oil and gas 

development. a. The plan relies on voluntary measures to protect habitat on existing oil and gas leases. b. The surface 

disturbance caps and other measures proposed to limit the impacts of oil and gas development are inadequate. 3. The plan 

does not include measures to protect greater sage-grouse from impacts of activities other than oil and gas development. 4. 

Provisions for monitoring and adaptive management are insufficient.

CO BLM emc0051RM

156. The plan does not set any high-priority habitat aside from development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)2 have both recommended that high priority habitat in the Little Snake Field Office be 

set-aside from development and managed as protected core areas. FWS comments on the proposed plan state that, “For 

high priority habitats, we recommend avoiding energy development and similar activities, and instead, managing them as 

protected core areas.”3 CPW further emphasizes this, stating that, “...establishment of large greater sage-grouse refuges 

...may ultimately prove to be the only effective means of conserving greater sage-grouse populations in areas of extensive 

oil and gas development.” CPW goes on to recommend that the LSFO preserve options for establishment of future refuges 

by retaining unleased minerals, and avoiding the re-leasing of minerals in high priority habitats.4 The final LSFO plan fails to 

set-aside high priority sagegrouse habitat from development, or preserve options to set-aside core areas in the future.

CO BLM emc0051RM

157. The plan does not adequately protect greater sage-grouse from the impacts of oil and gas development. The final RMP 

proposes to protect large blocks of unfragmented sage-grouse habitat from the impacts of oil and gas development through 

application of Controlled Surface Use stipulations (CSUs) in high and medium priority sage-grouse habitats.5 These CSUs 

limit oil and gas surface disturbance to 1% in high priority habitat on new leases, 5% in high priority habitat on existing

leases, and 5% in medium priority habitat on both new and existing leases. This will be mandatory on new leases and 

voluntary on existing leases. Operators on existing leases will be offered exceptions to big game and sage-grouse timing 

stipulations as an incentive to agree to the voluntary surface disturbance limits. Operators will also be required to submit 

a Plan of Development with a strategy to keep large blocks of sage-brush undisturbed. Finally, surface occupancy associated 

with oil and gas activities is prohibited within 0.6 miles of sage-grouse leks on both new and existing leases.6 This proposal 

is unlikely to prevent unacceptable impacts to greater sage-grouse for the reasons outlined below, increasing the likelihood 

that the species will require the protection of the ESA in 2015.

CO BLM emc0051RM

158. a. The plan relies on voluntary measures to protect habitat on existing oil and gas leases. Roughly 56% of the high priority 

habitat and 46% of the medium priority habitat on BLM lands in the LSFO is under existing leases, which are protected only 

by voluntary 5% surface disturbance caps (See Map 1). 7,8 There is a risk of unacceptable harm to greater sage-grouse if 

operators choose not to opt-in to the voluntary 5% surface disturbance caps, particularly in high priority habitat.9 There is 

substantial uncertainty regarding whether operators will opt-in, and the FWS typically does not consider voluntary 

CO Both emc0051RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-664 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

measures to be adequate regulatory mechanisms that would be sufficient to prevent listing under the Endangered Species 

Act.

159. Based on the management guidelines outlined in the proposed RMP, The Wilderness Society’s Center for Landscape 

Analysis (CLA) used GIS spatial technology to model the potential distribution of oil and gas development under the 

proposed plan, assuming industry would not opt into voluntary surface disturbance restrictions.10,11 The findings of this 

analysis demonstrate the inadequacy of the voluntary sage-grouse conservation measures in the LSFO RMP. CLA found 

that the densest areas of oil and gas development will include the highest priority sagegrouse habitat in the LSFO. In 

addition, the CLA analysis projects that, under BLM’s RMP, if developers do not comply with the voluntary surface 

disturbance limits, there will be 28 active leks with more than 12 well pads within 2 miles, a threshold of development 

above which the rate of inactivity of leks has been demonstrated to double.12 Thus, if operators do not opt-in to the 

voluntary disturbance caps, oil and gas development allowed under the final RMP could result in extirpation or decline of 

28 of the roughly 129 active leks within the LSFO, including leks in areas that support some of the highest densities of 

breeding birds in northwest Colorado (See Map 2).13

CO BLM emc0051RM

160. BLM’s rational for making the disturbance caps voluntary on existing leases, is that a valid existing lease conveys rights of 

development to the lease holder that prohibit BLM from adding a stipulation to an existing lease after the lease is issued.14 

However, BLM has broad authority and responsibility to add mitigation measures as conditions of approval on existing 

leases (when supported by scientific analysis), even when such measures are more stringent than the stipulations on the 

lease.15 Thus, protections on existing leases should be mandatory.

CO BLM emc0051RM

161. Finally, FWS is concerned that granting oil and gas operators exceptions from Seasonal Timing Limitations, in exchange for 

adhering to the surface disturbance caps, may put greater sagegrouse populations at risk.

CO BLM emc0051RM

162. b. The surface disturbance caps and other measures proposed to limit the impacts of oil and gas development are 

inadequate. Surface disturbance will be limited to 1% in high priority habitat on new leases, 5% in high priority habitat on 

existing leases, and 5% in medium priority habitat on both new and existing leases. The surface disturbance caps are 

mandatory on new leases. However, even if made mandatory on both new and existing leases, 5% surface disturbance caps 

are inadequate. Both FWS and CPW are concerned that the application of 5% surface disturbance caps is unlikely to 

prevent declines. FWS firmly states that, “...the Service believes that the 1 and 5 percent surface disturbance factors may 

be too high to provide a high likelihood of long-term conservation of these sage-grouse populations. We recommend a 

disturbance factor closer to 1 percent for medium priority habitats for sage-grouse. For high priority habitats, we 

recommend avoiding energy development and similar activities and, instead, managing them as protected core areas.” 

CPW warns that “...5% surface disturbance limitations will be inadequate to protect greater sage-grouse core areas from 

the effects of oil and gas development.”17 Instead, CPW recommends that BLM be more conservative and limit surface 

disturbance to 1% in high priority habitat. The stated intent of the 5% surface disturbance cap is to average no more than 

one oil and gas well per 160 acres within a project area.19 This translates to roughly 50 wells per 32.2 square kilometers 

(or 4 wells per square mile), a threshold at which the rate of inactivity of leks was demonstrated to jump by greater than 

five times in Wyoming oil and gas fields.20 Application of the 5% surface disturbance cap will not prevent well densities 

from exceeding a threshold that has been demonstrated to compromise sage-grouse populations.

CO BLM emc0051RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-665

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

163. Further, both the 1% and 5% disturbance caps are likely to be ineffective, because they do not apply to all surface 

disturbances. Oil and gas related ROWs owned by a third party, central facilities, and existing and new disturbance from 

non-oil and gas related activities do not count towards the surface disturbance limits. In addition, the surface disturbance 

limits are applied to individual oil and gas leases, many of which are very small, rather than to biologically meaningful units 

of sage-grouse habitat (e.g. sage-grouse core areas).21 This is likely to allow a level of cumulative surface disturbance and 

energy structure density in high priority sage-grouse habitat that exceeds documented thresholds of tolerance for the 

species. FWS recommends that disturbance factor threshold approach consider the environmental baseline, existing 

disturbance, and all other direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, including rights-of-way and other non-oil and gas 

activities

CO BLM emc0051RM

164. The plan prohibits surface occupancy within 0.6 miles of leks.23 While this is an improvement from the 0.25 mile buffer 

around leks in the original LSFO RMP, which has been repeatedly shown to be inadequate, research suggests that oil and gas 

development can have significant negative impacts, even when wells are not placed within 0.6 miles of a lek.24 The 0.6 mile 

buffer will not limit the impacts of oil and gas facilities on leks and nesting habitat, to a level that is compatible with 

maintaining and increasing the greater sage-grouse population in the LSFO.

CO BLM emc0051RM

165. The Eagle-South Routt population is in north-central Colorado and is separated from nearby populations by distance and 

mountainous terrain. This population has undergone long-term declines. Population persistence for this population could 

not be modeled because of data limitations. However, based on current habitat impacts and management prescriptions, this 

population is unlikely to persist for more than 20 years.10 100 percent of the breeding habitat is affected by energy 

development.11 Research suggests that declines in lek attendance were strongly, negatively affected with the presence of 

wells in these areas, once the total number of wells in this Management Zone exceeded 250.12 Wells in the Northern 

Eagle/Southern Routt population currently exceed this threshold.

CO BLM emc0070RM

166. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: Increase the amount of 

protected priority habitat by aggressively pursuing available tools, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary 

grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts.

CO BLM emc0070RM

167. We recognize the challenge inherent in full implementation of the NTT’s recommendations, given social, political and legal 

factors associated with the need to maximize greater sage-grouse conservation efforts while providing for an appropriate 

level of continued energy development and other activities on our public lands. We are committed to working closely with 

the BLM and to achieve this balance. However, given the sage-grouse’s current precarious position, it is critical for BLM 

to be proactive in its protection efforts. We strongly encourage BLM to avoid making proposed modifications to the NTT 

recommendations and to keep any such adjustments within the narrowest possible range. Any proposed deviations from 

the NTT’s recommendations should be clearly outlined by the BLM, and resulting management prescriptions should be 

consistent with the best available science and the goal of maintaining and increasing greater sage-grouse populations. For 

instance, in areas with relatively small surviving sage-grouse populations and high levels of ongoing energy development, 

fully protecting remaining birds and remnant habitat should be the management priority.

CO BLM emc0070RM

168. i. The plan does not set aside any high-priority habitat aside from development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)36 have both recommended that high priority habitat in the Little Snake Field 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-666 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Office be set-aside from development and managed as protected core areas. FWS comments on the proposed plan state 

that, "For high priority habitats, we recommend avoiding energy development and similar activities, and instead, managing 

them as protected core areas."37 CPW further emphasizes this, stating that, "...establishment of large greater sage-grouse 

refuges...may ultimately prove to be the only effective means of conserving greater sage-grouse populations in areas of 

extensive oil and gas development." CPW goes on to recommend that the LSFO preserve options for establishment of 

future refuges by retaining unleased minerals, and avoiding the re-leasing of minerals in high priority habitats.38 The final 

LSFO plan fails to set-aside high priority sage-grouse habitat from development or preserve options to set-aside core areas 

in the future.

169. a. Little Snake Field Office Resource Management Plan. Ii. The plan does not adequately protect greater sage-grouse from 

the impacts of oil and gas development. The final RMP proposes to protect large blocks of unfragmented sage-grouse 

habitat from the impacts of oil and gas development through application of Controlled Surface Use stipulations (CSUs) in 

high and medium priority sage-grouse habitats.39 These CSUs limit oil and gas surface disturbance to 1% in high priority 

habitat on new leases, 5% in high priority habitat on existing leases, and 5% in medium priority habitat on both new and 

existing leases. This will be mandatory on new leases and voluntary on existing leases. Operators on existing leases will be 

offered exceptions to big game and sage-grouse timing stipulations as an incentive to agree to the voluntary surface 

disturbance limits. Operators will also be required to submit a Plan of Development with a strategy to keep large blocks of 

sage-brush undisturbed. Finally, surface occupancy associated with oil and gas activities is prohibited within 0.6 miles of 

sage-grouse leks on both new and existing leases.40 This proposal is unlikely to prevent unacceptable impacts to greater 

sage-grouse for the reasons outlined below, increasing the likelihood that the species will require the protection of the ESA 

in 2015.

CO BLM emc0070RM

170. a. The plan relies on voluntary measures to protect habitat on existing oil and gas leases and grants exceptions to seasonal 

timing limitations as an incentive. Roughly 56%f the high priority habitat and 46% of the medium priority habitat on BLM 

lands in the LSFO is under existing leases, which are protected only by voluntary 5% surface disturbance caps. 41,42 There 

is a risk of unacceptable harm to greater sage-grouse if operators choose not to opt-in to the voluntary 5% surface 

disturbance caps, particularly in high priority habitat.43 There is substantial uncertainty regarding whether operators will 

opt-in, and the FWS typically does not consider voluntary measures to be adequate regulatory mechanisms that would be 

sufficient to prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act.

CO BLM emc0070RM

171. Based on the management guidelines outlined in the proposed RMP, The Wilderness Society’s Center for Landscape 

Analysis (CLA) used GIS spatial technology to model the potential distribution of oil and gas development under the 

proposed plan, assuming industry would not opt into voluntary surface disturbance restrictions.44,45 The findings of this 

analysis demonstrate the inadequacy of the voluntary sage-grouse conservation measures in the LSFO RMP. CLA found 

that the densest areas of oil and gas development will include the highest priority sage-grouse habitat in the LSFO. In 

addition, the CLA analysis projects that, under BLM’s RMP, if developers do not comply with the voluntary surface 

disturbance limits, there will be 28 active leks with more than 12 well pads within 2 miles, a threshold of development 

above which the rate of inactivity of leks has been demonstrated to double.46 Thus, if operators do not opt-in to the 

voluntary disturbance caps, oil and gas development allowed under the final RMP could result in extirpation or decline in 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-667

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

use of 28 of the roughly 129 active leks within the LSFO, including leks in areas that support some of the highest densities 

of breeding birds in northwest Colorado (See Map 2).47 (Coder's note: No map was attached with this comment. This 

appears to be left over from another submission they sent.)

172. BLM’s rationale for making the disturbance caps voluntary on existing leases, is that a valid existing lease conveys rights of 

development to the lease holder that prohibit BLM from adding a stipulation to an existing lease after the lease is issued.48

However, BLM has broad authority and responsibility to add mitigation measures as conditions of approval on existing 

leases (when supported by scientific analysis), even when such measures are more stringent than the stipulations on the 

lease.49 Thus, protections on existing leases should be mandatory.

CO BLM emc0070RM

173. Finally, FWS is concerned that granting oil and gas operators exceptions from Seasonal Timing Limitations, in exchange for 

adhering to the surface disturbance caps, may put greater sage-grouse populations at risk.50

CO BLM emc0070RM

174. b. The surface disturbance caps and other measures proposed to limit the impacts of oil and gas development are 

inadequate. Surface disturbance will be limited to 1% in high priority habitat on new leases, 5% in high priority habitat on 

existing leases, and 5% in medium priority habitat on both new and existing leases. The surface disturbance caps are 

mandatory on new leases. However, even if made mandatory on both new and existing leases, 5% surface disturbance caps 

are inadequate. Both FWS and CPW are concerned that the application of 5% surface disturbance caps is unlikely to 

prevent declines. FWS firmly states that, "...the Service believes that the 1 and 5 percent surface disturbance factors may be 

too high to provide a high likelihood of long-term conservation of these sage-grouse populations. We recommend a 

disturbance factor closer to 1 percent for medium priority habitats for sage-grouse. For high priority habitats, we 

recommend avoiding energy development and similar activities and, instead, managing them as protected core areas." CPW 

warns that "...5% surface disturbance limitations will be inadequate to protect greater sage-grouse core areas from the 

effects of oil and gas development."51 Instead, CPW recommends that BLM be more conservative and limit surface 

disturbance to 1% in high priority habitat.52 The stated intent of the 5% surface disturbance cap is to average no more than 

one oil and gas well per 160 acres within a project area.53 This translates to roughly 50 wells per 32.2 square kilometers 

(or 4 wells per square mile), a threshold at which the rate of inactivity of leks was demonstrated to jump by greater than 

five times in Wyoming oil and gas fields.54 Application of the 5% surface disturbance cap will not prevent well densities 

from exceeding a threshold that has been demonstrated to compromise sage-grouse populations.

CO BLM emc0070RM

175. Further, both the 1% and 5% disturbance caps are likely to be ineffective, because they do not apply to all surface 

disturbances. Oil and gas related ROWs owned by a third party, central facilities, and existing and new disturbance from 

non-oil and gas related activities do not count towards the surface disturbance limits. In addition, the surface disturbance 

limits are applied to individual oil and gas leases, many of which are very small, rather than to biologically meaningful units 

of sage-grouse habitat (e.g. sage-grouse core areas).55 This is likely to allow a level of cumulative surface disturbance and 

energy structure density in high priority sage-grouse habitat that exceeds documented thresholds of tolerance for the 

species. FWS recommends that the disturbance factor threshold approach consider the environmental baseline, existing 

disturbance, and all other direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, including rights-of-way and other non-oil and gas 

activities.56

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-668 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

176. The [LSFO] plan prohibits surface occupancy within 0.6 miles of leks.57 While this is an improvement from the 0.25 mile 

buffer around leks in the original LSFO RMP, which has been repeatedly shown to be inadequate, research suggests that oil 

and gas development can have significant negative impacts, even when wells are not placed within 0.6 miles of a lek.58 The 

0.6 mile buffer will not limit the impacts of oil and gas facilities on leks and nesting habitat, to a level that is compatible with 

maintaining and increasing the greater sage-grouse population in the LSFO.

CO BLM emc0070RM

177. While existing or draft RMPs in NW Colorado discuss a number of traditional sources of direct and indirect impacts of 

anthropogenic developments on greater sage-grouse, CPW has noticed a lack of information and discussion of how and 

when noise from oil and gas development impacts greater sage-grouse. There is a developing body of literature suggesting 

that limiting anthropogenic sources of noise is necessary to minimize human impacts on greater sage-grouse (as well as 

other grouse species in the family Tetraonidae). There are a number of mechanisms by which anthropogenic sources of

noise can negatively impact grouse, including the following: • Industrial noise masks the sounds of strutting males and may 

disrupt female choice of males on the lek (leading to reduced productivity)and cause females (and consequently males) to 

abandon leks; • Industrial noise masks sounds made by approaching predators and may lead to increased predation and 

reduced survival for all age and sex classes in all seasonal habitats, not just at leks. Over time, this may result in reduced

survival of birds inhabiting areas near noise sources and ultimately, fewer birds in developed areas. Sage-grouse may also 

avoid areas with industrial noise, which would result in the same pattern; • Industrial noise in brood-rearing habitats may 

mask the predator-warning vocalizations given by females to chicks or the contact calls of lost chicks, either of which could 

lead to reduced brood survival; • Sage-grouse of all age and sex classes in all seasonal habitats may respond to increased 

ambient noise by increasing time spent being vigilant, thereby increasing energetic costs and decreasing time available for 

foraging and self-maintenance, leading to poorer body condition and reduced productivity; and • Industrial noise could 

cause chronic physiological stress that leads to poorer body condition and reduced survival or productivity

CO Both emc0072RM

178. CPW believes that BLM and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) should closely coordinate 

the final adopted PRMP outcomes, especially the PPH and GPH maps and habitat designations. Coordination is important 

so that the COGCC oil and gas Rules, as amended by House Bill 1298 and the July 2009 agreement entitled Memorandum 

of Understanding Among Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 

and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Concerning Oil and Gas Permitting on BLM and NFS Lands in 

Colorado are consistent. Concurrent habitat designations can provide a fluid avenue for BLM and COGCC to commit to 

consistent protective measures within these habitat designations that would result in greater certainty for oil and gas 

operators working with federal and state regulatory agencies and enhanced conservation of greater sage-grouse.

CO BLM emc0072RM

179. In the Draft RMP for the Kremmling (CO) Field Office31, Alternative C would commit the BLM to: ...proactively identify, 

protect, and improve wildlife habitat, including treatments for the benefit of sagebrush-dependent species, especially in 

areas identified as historical habitats. Alternative C would include establishing reference areas that would be used as

control groups for evaluating management activities in sagebrush habitat. In sage-grouse core areas within the Planning 

Area, BLM-managed public lands would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Draft RMP32 at 2-24. Alternative B (preferred 

alternative) would prohibit surface occupancy or use in core habitat. Draft RMP at 2-55 – 2-56. Alternative C would 

prohibit oil and gas leasing in core sage-grouse habitat. Draft RMP at 2-55. Alternative C would also limit surface 

CO Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-669

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

disturbance in core habitat to one percent at any one time, while Alternative B would limit surface disturbance to three 

percent at any one time. Draft RMP at 2-74.

180. V. AMEND THE ROUTT PLAN VIA MECHANISMS THAT WILL BEST HELP CONSERVE GSG. The current Forest Plan 

direction potentially applicable to GSG conservation (SRC at 5-6) is inadequate to ensure survival and recovery of the 

species. None of the measures are specifically geared toward protecting GSG, and none of the oil-gas lease stipulations 

apply year-round. In order to ensure the highest likelihood of conserving GSG, the Forest Service will have to limit human 

uses of GSG habitat and surrounding areas. It will be especially important that no oil-gas leasing or mineral development be 

allowed on any GSG habitat and some adjacent land. No road construction can be allowed in GSG habitat, subject to valid 

existing rights. Livestock grazing may have to be adjusted. Also, as is discussed in part 3 below, the current management 

prescription assigned to the draft core areas is not appropriate for ensuring the protection of GSG. Thus new Forest Plan 

direction is needed to incorporate the recommendations outlined by the National Technical Team and ensure the best 

chances for recovery of GSG populations. The agency should amend the Routt Land and Resource Management Plan via the 

following methods, using point 1 alone, or preferably, in combination with points 2 and/or 3:

CO USFS emc0175RM

181. 1. Adopt strong new forest-wide standards. It is most important to have standards applying to GSG habitat wherever it is 

found, regardless of whether the other two mechanisms discussed below are used. As discussed in section IV above, we 

recommend that the Forest Service adopt the recommendations of the National Technical Team, with some additional 

measures. Most or all of the NTT’s recommendations should be adopted as forest-wide standards, whose application is 

mandatory: Standards are actions that must be followed or are required limits to activities in order to achieve forest goals. 

Deviations from standards must be analyzed and documented in a forest plan amendment. Routt Forest Plan at 1-4. Few 

if any of the NTT’s recommendations should be guidelines, whose application is discretionary: Guidelines are advisable 

courses of actions that should be followed to achieve forest goals but are optional. Deviations form guidelines must be 

analyzed and documented in a project decision document but do not require a forest plan amendment. Forest Plan, ibid. 

At a minimum, all occupied sage grouse habitat must be unavailable for oil and gas leasing. Allowing leasing with no surface 

occupancy is not sufficient because that could allow tall structures, like drill rigs, and unacceptable levels of noise, in areas 

adjacent to the habitat. That would make the habitat unusable by GSG, since they naturally avoid such structures in order 

to avoid predation, and the noise would seriously interfere with reproduction.

CO USFS emc0175RM

182. Critical on-the-ground look at the relationship of the grouse and oil and gas development. It is our understanding that there 

are some significant development areas with significant numbers of grouse and grouse populations are doing just fine. There 

are other areas of marginal grouse habitat where leks have been abandoned for no apparent reason other than their 

current location had always been marginal habitat. Therefore, the EIS needs to closely examine these situations to 

determine the respective causes.

CO Both emc0178RM

183. BLM cannot lawfully adopt, as part of an approved RMP or otherwise, the types of recommendations in the Technical 

Report because the Technical Report fails to recognize valid existing rights as required by law. The Sage-Grouse NOI states 

that "[t}the RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will recognize existing rights." 76 Fed. Reg. at 77011. Oxy agrees that any 

RMP amendments/revisions legally must recognize and uphold valid existing rights. Despite the affirmative statement in the 

SageGrouse NOI, the Technical Report fails to recognize valid existing rights as required by law. With respect to mineral 

CO Both rmc0021RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-670 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

development, the Technical Report states that "where va lid existing rig hts exist, minimize those impacts [from energy 

development} by keeping disturbances to 1 per section with direct surface disturbance impacts held to 3% of the area or 

less." NTI at 21. The Technical Report then continues, providing two pages of recommendations with respect to "[lleased 

federal fluid mineral estate[s}." NTI at 22-24. The recommendations with respect to leased federal fluid mineral estates 

include, among others and with limited exceptions: • No new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitat 

during any time of the year. • Applying seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling prohibiting surface-disturbing activities 

during the nesting and early-brood -rearing season in all priority sage-grouse habitat during this period. • Limiting surface 

disturbance on existing leases that are not yet developed to 3% of the leased area. BLM cannot lawfully adopt, as part of any 

approved RMP or otherwise, the types of recommendations contained in the Technical Report. Under BLM's regulations:

[aJ lessee shall have the right to use so much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, 

remove and dispose of all the leased resource in a leasehold subject to: (i) stipulations attached to the lease; (ii) restrictions 

deriving from specific, nondiscretionary statutes; and (iii) such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized 

officer to minimize adverse im pacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the lease stipulations at 

the time operations are proposed ... [t]o the extent consistent with lease rights granted. 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2. First, Oxy's 

existing leases within the areas identified as PPH and PGH on the Colorado SageGrouse Maps do not contain express 

stipulations prohibiting or limiting development where sage-grouse are found or expected to be found. Second, the 

Endangered Species Act ("ESA") does not act as a specific, nondiscretionary statute that can alter, or in this case, eliminate 

valid existing rights. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") has not listed, and may never list, the greater 

sage-grouse as an endangered or threatened species. In fact, though the greater sage-grouse is designated a candidate 

species (and a sensitive species by BLM), and has received a "warranted but precluded" decision, the USFWS assigned the

greater sage-grouse a Listing Priority Number of 8 out of 12 (with 1 being the highest priority and 12 being the lowest 

priority). 75 Fed Reg. 13910, 14008 (March 23, 2010). In contrast to threatened and endangered species, the ESA does not 

direct federal and state agencies to implement programs and authorities to protect candidate species. See 16 U.S.c. § 

1S31(c)(l) (Directing state and federal agencies only to "seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species"). 

Accordingly, in this instance, the ESA does not support the types of restrictions contemplated by BLM or Justify an 

infringement on valid existing rights.

184. Additionally, an amendment to an RMP under FLPMA to impose new management strategies to conserve sage-grouse 

habitat does not reflect a specific, non-discretionary statutory provision authorizing implementation of previously 

unanticipated conditions on existing oil and gas leases. In fact, BLM's own regulations reflect that upon amendment of an 

RMP, BLM must step cautiously and maysubject to valid existing rights-take appropriate measures to make operations and 

activities under eXisting permits or other instruments for occupancy and use, conform to the amended RMP, only if

otherwise authorized by law, regulation, contract, permit, cooperative agreement or other instrument of occupancy and 

use. 43 C.F.R. § 161O.S-3(b)(emphasis added). Here, there is no other law, regulation, contract, permit, cooperative 

agreement or instrument that would authorize the conservation measures or restrictions on development contemplated 

by the Technical Report

CO Both rmc0021RM

185. Third, BLM's regulations specifically require that any reasonable measures required by BLM to minimize adverse impacts to CO Both rmc0021RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-671

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the lease stipulations be consistent with the lease rights granted. 

43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2. The regulations indicatethat reasonable measures may include: modification to siting or design of 

facilities, timing of operations, and specification of interim and final reclamation measures. & Nowhere do the regulations 

support the types of restrictions recommended by the Technical Report (i.e. either no surface disturbance or disturbance 

of only 3% of the lease area) as reasonable. Such restrictions could be so onerous that an operator could be precluded from 

economically or technologically exercising its rights under its existing leases. The restrictions proposed by the Technical 

Report are not reasonable and thus not authorized under FLPMA or its implementing regulations. See Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance. et aI., 174 IBLA 1, S (March 3, 2008) (Citations omitted) ("FLPMA coexists with mineral leasing 

statutes and recognizes the need for multiple use management, which includes taking into account the nation's need for

nonrenewable resources such as minerals, and domestic sources of minerals .. from the public lands."). Accordingly, BLM 

may not prevent lessees with valid existing rights, including Oxy, from using so much of the leased lands as is necessary to 

explore for oil and gas beneath existing federal leases, based upon a Singular desire to conserve the sage-grouse

186. 5. The BLM should put mandatory standards in place to safeguard sage-grouse. Because inappropriately located oil and gas 

development has been formally recognized by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as being a major threat to sage-grouse in 

Colorado (and throughout the eastern range), the Resource Management Plans cannot rely on voluntary standards to 

minimize the negative impacts of oil and gas drilling. BLM should require companies to act responsibly to protect greater 

sage-grouse. I respectfully ask that the BLM put important safeguards in place in its long-term management plans, to save 

the sage-grouse and conserve our land, water and wildlife for future generations to enjoy. Thanks for your consideration.

CO Both fln0000RM

187. Scientists agree that Colorado's current land management plans fail to protect greater sage-grouse from threats like 

inappropriately located oil and gas drilling. Updating standards the BLM's Little Snake Resource Management Plan, for 

example, will protect Colorado's largest and most important population of greater sage-grouse. Updating standards to 

protect natural areas and ensure responsible oil and gas drilling, will not only conserve sage-grouse, but also help secure the 

future of our West Slope, wildlife, water, and communities.

CO Both flm0000RM

188. The BLM should put mandatory standards in place to safeguard sage-grouse. Because inappropriately located oil and gas 

development has been formally recognized by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as being a major threat to sage-grouse in 

Colorado (and throughout the eastern range), the Resource Management Plans cannot rely on voluntary standards to 

minimize the negative impacts of oil and gas drilling. BLM should require companies to act responsibly to protect greater 

sage-grouse. I ask that the BLM put important safeguards in place in its long-term management plans, to save the 

sage-grouse and conserve our land, water and wildlife for future generations to enjoy. Thank you for your time.

CO Both flm0000RM

189. Scientists agree that Colorado’s current land management plans fail to protect greater sage-grouse from threats like 

inappropriately located oil and gas drilling. Updating standards the BLM’s Little Snake Resource Management Plan, for 

example, will protect Colorado’s largest and most important population of greater sage-grouse. Updating standards to 

protect natural areas and ensure responsible oil and gas drilling, will not only conserve sage-grouse, but also help secure the 

future of our West Slope, wildlife, water, and communities.

CO BLM fll0000RM

190. The BLM should put mandatory standards in place to safeguard sage-grouse. Because inappropriately located oil and gas 

development has been formally recognized by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as being a major threat to sage-grouse in 

CO BLM fll0000RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-672 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Colorado (and throughout the eastern range), the Resource Management Plans cannot rely on voluntary standards to 

minimize the negative impacts of oil and gas drilling. BLM should require companies to act responsibly to protect greater 

sage-grouse. I ask that the BLM put important safeguards in place in its long-term management plans, to save the 

sage-grouse and conserve our land, water and wildlife for future generations to enjoy. Thank you for your time.

191. Updating standards the BLM's Grizzly Ridge area of the Gunnison Gorge NCA Natural Resource Management Plan, for 

example, will protect Colorado's largest and most important population of greater sage-grouse

CO Both flm0003RM

192. with the oil and gas development in wyoming, north dakota, montana, etc. it is important to get the ball rolling to speak 

before its too late.

East Both emc0006RM

193. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation: Increase the amount of 

protected priority habitat by aggressively pursuing available tools, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary 

grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts.

East Both emc0089RM

194. We recognize the challenge inherent in full implementation of the NTT’s recommendations, given social, political and legal 

factors associated with the need to maximize greater sage-grouse conservation efforts while providing for an appropriate 

level of continued energy development and other activities on our public lands. We are committed to working closely with 

the BLM and FS to achieve this balance. However, given the sage-grouse’s current precarious position, the BLM and FS 

have an opportunity to be proactive in their protection efforts. We strongly encourage BLM and FS to avoid making 

proposed modifications to the NTT recommendations and to keep any such adjustments within the narrowest possible 

range. Any proposed deviations from the NTT’s recommendations should be clearly outlined by the agencies, and resulting 

management prescriptions should be consistent with the best available science and the goal of maintaining and increasing 

greater sage-grouse populations. For instance, in areas with relatively small surviving sage-grouse populations and high 

levels of ongoing energy development, fully protecting remaining birds and remnant habitat should be the management 

priority.

East Both emc0089RM

195. i. Lander, WY RMP The identification of Designated Development Areas (DDA) in Alternative D, established for the

purpose of facilitating intensive oil and gas exploration, development, and production, allows for clear future management. 

However, reclamation standards must be strong to limit the spread of invasive species and allow for the functionality of the 

habitat to be restored as quickly as possible post-development.

East Both emc0089RM

196. In the Draft RMP for the Kremmling (CO) Field Office31, Alternative C would commit the BLM to: ...proactively identify, 

protect, and improve wildlife habitat, including treatments for the benefit of sagebrush-dependent species, especially in 

areas identified as historical habitats. Alternative C would include establishing reference areas that would be used as

control groups for evaluating management activities in sagebrush habitat. In sage-grouse core areas within the Planning 

Area, BLM-managed public lands would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Draft RMP32 at 2-24. Alternative B (preferred 

alternative) would prohibit surface occupancy or use in core habitat. Draft RMP at 2-55 – 2-56. Alternative C would 

prohibit oil and gas leasing in core sage-grouse habitat. Draft RMP at 2-55. Alternative C would also limit surface 

disturbance in core habitat to one percent at any one time, while Alternative B would limit surface disturbance to three 

percent at any one time. Draft RMP at 2-74.

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-673

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

197. Habitat fragmentation may be one of the worst effects from such activities, resulting from infrastructure associated with 

the development, including access roads. The Fish and Wildlife Service has noted that these habitat fragmentation impacts 

may have greater effects on sage-grouse greater than the associated direct habitat losses. In detail, the NTT states that 

fragmentation of sagebrush habitats has been cited as a primary cause of the decline of sage-grouse populations because the 

species requires large expanses of contiguous sagebrush. (p. 20) Specifically, the NTT points out studies that have 

documented negative effects of fragmentation as a result of oil and gas development and its associated infrastructure on lek 

persistence, lek attendance, winter habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival rate, and female nest site choice. (p.

20) Throughout a collection of scientific studies, the documented impact on lek attendance ranges from 3.1 to as far away 

as 11.7 miles from a lek. Negative effects of well surface occupancy were apparent out to 3.1 miles, the largest radius 

investigated, in 2 of 7 study areas in Wyoming (Harju et al. 2010). Curvilinear relationships show that lek counts decreased 

with distance to the nearest active drilling rig, producing well, or main haul road and that development within 3 to 4 miles 

of leks decrease counts of displaying males (Holloran 2005). All well‐supported models in Walker et al. (2007) indicate a 

strong negative effect, estimated as proportion of development within either 0.5 miles or 2 miles, on lek persistence. A 

model with development at 4 miles had less support, but the regression coefficient indicated that negative impacts within 

4 miles were still apparent. Two additional studies reported negative impacts apparent out to 8 miles on large lek 

occurrence (>25 males; Tack 2009) and out to 11.7 miles on lek trends (Johnson et al. 2011), the largest scales evaluated.

East Both emc0167RM

198. The Dillon RMP should be modified to incorporate preliminary priority area maps, and to update oil and gas stipulations to 

be consistent with new agency guidance.

IDMT Both rmc0028GB

199. With the new emphasis on gas drilling in SW Idaho, quantify and verify the impacts of construction activities and facilities 

associated with gas drilling (i.e. road-building, increase in traffic, well pad placement, etc.) in addition to the cumulative 

affect the gas drilling industry will have on sage grouse habitat and ground water. Use best management practices for sage 

grouse developed in other states when permitting any new gas drilling in SW Idaho.

IDMT Both emc0305GB

200. WWF is most concerned about the placement of Keystone XL pump stations PS-9 and PS-10 in northern Montana and 

PS-15 and PS-16 in western South Dakota. WWF’s Northern Great Plains Program has funded research related to greater 

sage-grouse migratory corridors between the southern Canadian populations (Saskatchewan and Alberta) and northern

Montana. These studies show significant movements by greater sage-grouse between these areas and suggest that these 

areas are vital for sage-grouse annual movements. The map below shows the location of the proposed Keystone XL 

pipeline (alternative B in yellow) relative to two Montana sage-grouse core areas (1 and 2 shown in tan), as defined by 

sage-grouse researchers and federal and state land and wildlife management agencies (BLM; NRCS; MT Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks). *Included an attachment (map) 'Keystone XL Project'

MT-RM Both emc0034RM

201. The pipeline will bisect known migratory corridors for sage-grouse, as evidenced by the map below, which show satellite 

tracked daily movements of sage-grouse between Montana core areas 1 and 2 (red hatched areas) based on data collected 

by Rebecca Smith under the supervision of Dr. Dave Naugle (University of Montana). PS-10 and the associated transmission 

line are located in and adjacent to this migratory corridor. The movement data collected by Rebecca Smith and sage-grouse 

movement data collected from across the eastern region should be considered in your planning process. Furthermore, 

considerations of the importance of connectivity of sage-grouse habitats including those that extend beyond national 

MT-RM Both emc0034RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-674 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

borders should be a key consideration as the Canadian population of sage-grouse is unlikely to persist without the support 

of management actions by wildlife and land managers in the United States including the BLM. *Included an attachment 

(map) 'Sage-grouse migration paths Fall 2010'

202. We also believe the impact of the pipeline on migratory corridors has been overlooked. While alternative B bisects only a 

small portion of Montana sage-grouse core area 1, it bisects key migratory pathways for sage-grouse coming from and 

moving to Canada. Because sage-grouse from core areas 1 and 2 provide ‘source’ populations for sage-grouse that are 

federally listed as endangered in Canada, it is imperative that we not disrupt their migration in this region. All pump stations 

and other permanent structures should be placed a minimum of 2 miles (3.2 km) from the nearest lek, with a preferred 

distance of >4 miles (6.4 km) from active leks, based upon the best-available data from Naugle et al. (2011). Power lines 

should be buried whenever possible to decrease impacts from aerial predators. These recommendations hold for all types 

of oil and gas development within the range of greater sage-grouse and should be applied to the Keystone XL pipeline on 

BLM lands without exception.

MT-RM Both emc0034RM

203. The Little Missouri Grazing Association (LMGA) has taken a pro active approach towards the sage grouse. We have two 

years of habitat monitoring data collected. We also have data showing historical grazing use showing that the stocking rates 

have not changed in many years. The land use practices have not changed. We have no oil & gas impact and no industrial 

encroachment.

ND Both emc0039RM

204. I am writing to show my support for permanently withdrawing the remaining land parcels in Nye County that are being 

considered for lease options to oil and gas companies.

NVCA Both emc0019GB

205. I say NO to further gas and oil leases in this area of Nevada. NVCA Both emc0019GB

206. In order to adequately assess possible impacts to exploration and mining projects the locations of these "Priority Habitat 

Areas" must be identified. Without this information we will not know how we might be affected.

NVCA Both rmc0027GB

207. Oil and gas leasing (or geothermal leasing) has no impact to the Sage Grouse population in Nevada. If it is determined that 

the Sage grouse populations in Nevada are declining then leases could be issued with stipulations regarding the preservation 

of Sage grouse populations and or habitats

NVCA Both emc0245GB, 

emc0099RM

208. I have not seen any documentation demonstrating that sage grouse populations are still on the decline in Nevada. At a 

recent BLM oil and gas lease sale, there were several representatives from the BLM that were “knowledgeable” of the Sage 

Grouse issue and none of them could comment on this. I think that before leases are deferred or withdrawn from any oil 

and gas lease sale there should be more reason than the area might have the potential to support a specific species that 

might become threatened or endangered.

NVCA Both emc0245GB, 

emc0099RM

209. Restricting oil and gas leasing on public lands (BLM lands) for sage grouse habitat (or even “potential” habitat areas has 

already cost the state of Nevada over $1,000,000. if this policy continues, it will not only result in lost revenue to the state 

of Nevada but will adversely impact my profession (and all other geologists) working in the state of Nevada

NVCA Both emc0245GB, 

emc0099RM

210. Considering that Sage Grouse are not at risk in the state of Nevada, has the BLM contemplated any impact of potential 

lawsuits relevant to loss of income from the State of Nevada or other professionals (geologists) as a result of the BLM 

restricting leasing and or exploration under false assumptions that leasing (or exploration) adversely impacts the Sage 

NVCA Both emc0245GB, 

emc0099RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-675

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Grouse population in Nevada.

211. In reviewing the Bureau's Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Management Policies and Procedures contained in 1M 2012-043, 

the basic principals governing the management of the species and habitat would suggest a direct correlation with the 

restrictions identified above such as protection of un-fragmented habitats, minimization of habitat loss and fragmentation 

and management of habitats to maintain, enhance, or restore conditions that meet Greater Sage-Grouse life history needs. 

More specifically, the following actions would further result in a direct adverse impact in the ability to develop the potential 

reserves of our lands: - Fluid Mineral Leasing (i.e., oil, gas, and geothermal) It is BLM policy that where a field office 

determines that it is appropriate to authorize a proposed leasing decision, the following process must be followed: - The 

BLM will document the reasons for its determination and require the lessee to implement measures to minimize impacts to 

sage-grouse habitat. - In addition to considering opportunities for onsite mitigation, the BLM will consider whether it is 

appropriate to condition the lease with a requirement for offsite mitigation that the BLM, coordinating with the respective 

state wildlife agency, determines would avoid or minimize habitat and population-level effects (refer to WO-IM-2008-204, 

Off-Site Mitigation). - Unless the BLM determines, in coordination with the respective state wildlife agency, that the 

proposed lease and mitigation measures would cumulatively maintain or enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the 

proposed lease decision must be forwarded to the appropriate BLM State Director, State Wildlife Agency Director, and 

FWS representative for their review. Ifthis group is unable to agree on the appropriate mitigation for the proposed lease, 

then the proposed decision must be forwarded to the Greater Sage-Grouse National Policy Team with the addition of the 

State Wildlife Agency Director, when appropriate, for its review. If the National Policy Team and the State Wildlife Agency 

Director are unable to agree on the appropriate mitigation for the proposed lease, the ational Policy Team will coordinate 

with and brief the BLM Director for a final decision in absence of consensus. - Exception: Where drainage is likely or the 

lands are designated as No Surface Occupancy (NSO) in the existing LUP, the BLM may issue new leases with an NSO 

stipulation. The NSO stipulation will also have appropriate exception, waiver, and modification criteria. Note: A 

Controlled Surface Use stipulation is not an appropriate substitution for an NSO stipulation. Field offices retain the 

discretion to not move forward with a nomination or defer making a final decision on a leasing decision until the completion 

of the LUP process described in the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy for the affected area.

NVCA Both rmc0053GB

212. WWF is most concerned about the placement of Keystone XL pump stations PS-9 and PS-10 in northern Montana and 

PS-15 and PS-16 in western South Dakota. WWF’s Northern Great Plains Program has funded research related to greater 

sage-grouse migratory corridors between the southern Canadian populations (Saskatchewan and Alberta) and northern 

Montana. These studies show significant movements by greater sage-grouse between these areas and suggest that these 

areas are vital for sage-grouse annual movements. The map below shows the location of the proposed Keystone XL 

pipeline (alternative B in yellow) relative to two Montana sage-grouse core areas (1 and 2 shown in tan), as defined by 

sage-grouse researchers and federal and state land and wildlife management agencies (BLM; NRCS; MT Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks). *Included an attachment (map) 'Keystone XL Project'

SD Both emc0034RM

213. The continued exploration and production of Oil, Gas and other resources is an important factor in keeping the social and 

economic infrastructure on our local area and of this country intact. But further, we firmly believe their partnerships with 

other entities in the private sector and with government agencies are crucial to the success of this endeavor. The funding 

UT Both rmc0026RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-676 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

these companies have provided will assist in funding research and direct on-the-ground Sage Grouse habitat improvements. 

The research can increase better understanding of the bird's habits and traits in and around the areas that these projects 

are located. Cooperative actions such as just described will definitely help to keep funds available which is very important 

to sustain longterm projects to increase the sustainability of sage grouse habitat.

214. For fluid mineral leasing options consider horizontal drilling under core areas with the pads set outside core areas. The 

lease holders would know from the formations if this were an option or not.

WY Both emc0050RM

215. Our BLM Range Management people tell me that in Wyoming oil and gas development have destroyed sagegrouse habitat. WY Both emc0028RM

216. i. Lander, WY RMP The identification of Designated Development Areas (DDA) in Alternative D, established for the

purpose of facilitating intensive oil and gas exploration, development, and production, allows for clear future management. 

However, reclamation standards must be strong to limit the spread of invasive species and allow for the functionality of the 

habitat to be restored as quickly as possible post-development.

WY Both emc0089RM

217. BLM must also consider the long-term consequences of allowing CBM wells to switch to microbial conversion wells, 

hydraulic fracture water wells, or other uses that will prolong habitat disturbance beyond what was intended or reviewed 

in the 2003 PRB EIS.

WY BLM emc0129RM

218. Additionally, in recognition of the time and money that has been expended to ensure economic viability of such projects, 

we urge the agencies to adopt a similar approach to Wyoming’s when identifying reasonable conservation and mitigation 

measures in all habitat areas. The validity of recognizing current uses in developing a reasonable management strategy has 

been upheld by a variety of federal courts and the Department of Interior’s own Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). As 

such, we would oppose the suspension or delay of any existing projects or project proposals that occur on existing leases

during preparation of the EISs. Should the agencies decide to eliminate certain existing uses, they must provide strong 

scientific evidence that the State’s population management goals for Greater Sage-grouse cannot be met.

WY Both emc0340GB

219. In Wyoming, threats to remaining populations of sage grouse have increased at a rapid and unprecedented rate over the 

past 10 years due to the unprecedented acceleration in oil and gas development in sagebrush steppe habitats. According to 

Knick et al. (2003:625), “The continued threats to sagebrush ecosystems are numerous, and their consequences either will 

require long and expensive recovery or are largely irreversible” (internal citations omitted).

WY Both emc0343GB

220. The Red Desert Oil and gas development is accelerating rapidly in the Red Desert, resulting in increasing impacts to sage 

grouse populations found there. There is a heavy overlap between the location of moderate and high potential oil and gas 

deposits and active sage grouse leks in the region (see, e.g., South-Central Local Working Group 2007: 23). A major 

increase in oil and gas development in this area is taking place; project areas are both very large (1.2 million acres for 

Continental Divide – Creston, 250,000 acres for Desolation Flats, 270,000 acres for Atlantic Rim) and dense, with large 

numbers of new wells projected (e.g., 4,207 well in the Hiawatha Project, 8,950 wells in Continental Divide – Creston, and 

2,000 wells in Atlantic Rim). At present, a threefold increase in the number of oil and gas wells is projected over the current 

total of about 5,000. Virtually all of the BLM lands across much of the Red Desert are currently leased for oil and gas 

development, which means that industry possesses a limited property right to explore and develop these leases for oil and 

gas. The Rawlins Resource Management Plan made 97% of the 4.5 million acres of the BLM lands and minerals in the 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-677

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

planning area available for oil and gas leasing and development under varying stipulations.

221. Powder River Basin The sage grouse population in the Powder River Basin, the largest remaining occupied area in the 

Northern Plains ecosystem, is in especially dire straits. Even though the RMP amendments are not currently slated to apply 

here due to the sage grouse amendment already underway, this is an area that deserves extra attention. The Powder River 

Basin constitutes a significant portion of the range of the sage grouse, and its extirpation here would have important 

consequences for the persistence of the grouse on the High Plains as a whole. According to Naugle et al (2006:5), “An 

analysis of the current distribution and pace of development shows that the PRB is likely to be drilled at 32.4 ha (80 ac) 

spacing in less than 20 years (D. E. Naugle, unpublished data), leaving sage grouse no place else to go.” Coalbed methane 

development (and, to a lesser extent, conventional oil and gas development) is driving the present population crash. 

According to Walker et al. (2007:2644), in the Powder River Basin, “Of leks active in 1997 or later, only 38% of 26 leks in 

CBNG [coalbed methane] fields remained active by 2004–2005, compared to 84% of 250 leks outside CBNG fields.” This 

study found an 82% decline in sage grouse lek counts between 2001 and 2005, while Powder River Basin leks unaffected by 

development declined by only 12% over the same period. As of this study, 28,000 wells had been drilled on the Wyoming 

side of the Basin, but 50,000 additional wells had been authorized by the BLM. Id.

WY Both emc0343GB

222. The problems that sage grouse are having in the Powder River Basin have been compounded by the proliferation of CBM 

wastewater impoundments, which serve as habitat for mosquito larvae and increase the incidence of West Nile Virus 

(WNv). Naugle et al. (2004) reported that WNv was a dominant cause of mortality for certain sage grouse populations 

between 1998 and 2002. Taylor et al. (2012) found that as well densities increase to 8 wells per square mile in the Powder 

River Basin of Wyoming, a single West Nile virus outbreak is predicted to reduce active sage grouse leks from 360 to 6.

WY Both emc0343GB

223. Availability of winter habitat is also a major concern for this (Powder River Basin) population. According to Naugle et al. 

(2006:2), “Expansion of CBNG development threatens to extirpate birds from otherwise suitable habitats and further 

isolate remaining populations. Risk of complete loss of this population is high if plans proceed to develop the entire 

northern study area because their non-migratory status and behavioral avoidance of CBNG will leave these birds with no 

other options.”

WY Both emc0343GB

224. Doherty et al. (2008) found that sage grouse in the Powder River Basin selected sagebrush stands that were large and 

unfragmented by development, on gentle topography. Additionally, sage grouse use stands of taller sagebrush, as sagebrush 

that protrudes above the snow is the key winter food source. Such stands of taller sagebrush are often viewed as 

“decadent” by range managers and targeted for sagebrush “control” projects. Doherty et al. (2008) concluded, “As 

remaining winter habitats are developed, and sage-grouse can no longer avoid CBNG, it is unclear whether birds will be 

able to adapt to a disturbance of this magnitude.”

WY Both emc0343GB

225. It is important to note that while populations of sage grouse rebounded somewhat in areas not developed for coalbed 

methane between 2004 and 2005 (presumably due to more favorable weather patterns), this rebound failed to occur in

coalbed methane fields (see Walker et al. 2007, Figure 2).

WY Both emc0343GB

226. Threats posed by oil and gas development on private lands are, if anything, even more severe than those on public land. In 

the Powder River Basin, Walker et al (2007:2645) observed, “Most state and private minerals have been developed with 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-678 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

few or no requirements to mitigate impacts on wildlife.” Thus, while the plight of sage grouse on federal lands is dire in the 

Powder River Basin, their prognosis on non-federal lands is even worse.

227. The extent of the destruction of sage grouse habitat in the Powder River Basin is best illustrated by comparing two maps. 

The Northeast Wyoming LWG (2006:38) shows the distribution of sage grouse habitat by land cover as well as the 

distribution of sage grouse leks. Note that sage grouse distribution and habitat are clustered most heavily in the center of 

the basin. In preparation of a sage grouse plan amendment and interim management policy, the BLM modeled sage grouse 

habitat parameters using models that excluded habitats where drilling activity had reached sufficient density to impair 

habitat function. It is important to note that the bulk of the sage grouse habitat shown in the LWG report throughout the 

center of the basin has become so impaired by oil, gas, and coalbed methane activity that the BLM itself no longer considers 

it sage grouse habitat eligible for conservation protection on an interim basis. Given the massive number of wells that are 

forecast by the BLM’s Powder River Basin EIS and the widespread nature of oil and gas leasing, the impacts to sage grouse 

in the Powder River Basin are likely to get worse rather than better. According to BLM Buffalo Field Manager Chris 

Hanson, “We are about 96-97% leased in the Powder River Basin at this point.” Chris Hanson, Buffalo Field Office Manager, 

Sage Grouse Plan Amendment Land User Information Meeting, Buffalo, WY, May 28, 2008. This is a situation that must not 

be allowed to repeat itself in other Field Offices. Clearly, this is a population hanging on by a thread and likely to be 

extirpated in the absence of serious corrective action.

WY Both emc0343GB

228. The BLM recently released interim management guidelines in order to maintain the decision space while it promulgates an 

amendment to its land-use plan. These interim management guidelines also do not constitute the serious corrective action 

needed. The interim management guidelines were developed in collaboration with the Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

(an industry lobbying group) at a closed meeting in Laramie on May 8, 2008 and presented to the public at a meeting in 

Buffalo on May 28, 2008. The interim management direction as presented at the meeting would halt the approval of pending 

and future APDs, but only in areas designated as high-quality sage grouse habitat. High-quality sage grouse habitat was 

defined spatially in a way which, among other criteria, excludes any area with well densities greater than 1 well per 500 

acres. Thus, all areas previously affected by coalbed methane development, regardless of their previous quality as sage 

grouse habitat, were excluded. The only areas considered for protection were thus two strips of habitat along the eastern 

and western edges of the basin; sage grouse habitats in the center of the basin have essentially been written off by BLM. In 

addition, loopholes were provided that would permit CBM drilling in high-quality habitats if one of the following conditions 

is present: 1. There is existing infrastructure already in the area. It is unclear at this point whether “existing 

infrastructure” includes agriculture-related roads, ranch buildings, and plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells. 2. If there 

are existing or approved (and not yet drilled) coalbed methane wells in the area. 3. If the possibility exists that there will be 

drainage of coalbed methane from beneath federal lands or minerals to wells on neighboring private minerals. 4. If the 

land/minerals ownership pattern is fragmented with isolated parcels of federal ownership. Given the large number of

loopholes, it appears that CBM development will be halted only in places not likely to be targeted for development in any 

case. This problematic state of affairs must not be repeated in the sage grouse plan amendments. All in all, it appears that 

the Powder River Basin sage grouse population is headed for extirpation without the intervention of Endangered Species 

listing.

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-679

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

229. When the State of Wyoming embarked upon its groundbreaking sage grouse Core Area policy, it started with the right 

idea, identifying core habitats that supported the most abundant populations of sage grouse, and prioritizing these areas for

protection. However, because a consensus-based collaborative group (the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team or “Team”) 

was appointed by Governor Freudenthal to identify Core Areas and prescribe the conservation measures that applied 

there, representatives from the oil industry appointed to the Team were able to extract biologically inappropriate 

concessions, both in terms of removing key habitats from Core Areas and in creating loopholes and lowering protection 

levels that apply both within and outside the Core Areas. As a result, some Core Areas excluded key sage grouse habitats, 

and other lands that should have been Core Areas by virtue of having the highest densities of sage grouse were excluded 

entirely from the designations, especially in the Powder River Basin (Buffalo Field Office) and along the Atlantic Rim in the

Rawlins Field office. As a result, the Core Areas designated in the Powder River Basin likely are inadequate to prevent the 

extirpation of the species in this key linkage between populations in Montana and the Dakotas and the heart of the sage 

grouse range. A Population Viability Analysis recently commissioned by BLM for the Powder River Basin indicates that as 

well densities increase to 8 wells per square mile, a single West Nile virus outbreak is predicted to cause the functional 

extinction of this population across the Basin. See Attachment 2. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and the Sage 

Grouse Plan Amendments should address this problem directly by increasing the number of Core Areas to include the 

remaining high-density sage grouse lek complexes and expanding existing Core Areas. Populations elsewhere within Core 

Areas are likely to decline or even disappear if industrial development proceeds there under current guidelines. These 

crippling weaknesses in the Wyoming plan render it unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny as an adequate conservation 

measure. The federal government can and should do better for federal lands.

WY Both emc0343GB

230. There are a great many other flaws with the State of Wyoming’s Core Area boundaries as the currently stand. When the 

Core Areas were originally laid out, portions of the Atlantic Rim Coalbed Methane Project Area were excluded from Core 

at industry’s request despite the fact that they were pristine habitat with high-density sage grouse populations. If these lands 

had not been excluded, the Atlantic Rim CBM project would move forward in compliance with Core Area restrictions, 

resulting in a better outcome for sage grouse. In the Powder River Basin, a Core Area described in Sage Grouse 

Implementation team meetings as “the key-shaped Core”3 was gerrymandered to exclude potential coalbed methane 

deposits, and its boundary was drawn so that every sage grouse lek was right along the boundary of the Core, with lands 

unprotected from industrialization immediately adjacent to the leks. A great deal of unoccupied grassland non-habitat to 

the southwest was added to “compensate.” The end result, when development reaches the eastern boundary of the Core, 

is that the leks therein will likely be extirpated, while the unoccupied habitat added as window dressing will remain 

unoccupied; this Core therefore is incapable of functioning to protect sage grouse. According to Taylor et al. (2012:7), 

“questions remain regarding the ability of core areas in northeast Wyoming to support viable sage-grouse populations.” 

The cruel irony is that the Sage Grouse Implementation Team, in capitulating to the whims of the coalbed methane industry 

when designating the boundary for this Core, excluded lands that were at the time suitable sage grouse habitat and either 

undeveloped or only lightly impacted, in order to preserve the future option for drilling on lands which should by biological 

criteria have been designated as part of the Core Area. Today, highdensity drilling projects such as the Williams West Bear 

coalbed methane project have been proposed to be developed immediately on the boundary of the Core Area, within 0.6 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-680 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

mile of leks inside the Core. Approval of this project and others like it, on lands which should be managed as Priority 

Habitats, should be deferred until completion of this EIS process, whereupon the appropriateness of the project and 

necessary mitigation measures to be added as Conditions of Approval can be determined.

231. In winter, sage grouse select large expanses of sagebrush with gentle topography and avoided conifer, riparian, and energy 

development (Doherty 2008). Well density had an additional effect in this study (id.). Sage grouse were 30% more likely to 

use winter habitat if CBM development was not present (id.). There was a landscape-scale effect of habitat selection, with 

areas with greater sagebrush at a 4 km2 scale receiving greater winter use (id.). Carpenter et al. (2010) found a similar 

relationship in Alberta, and found that grouse avoided oil and gas wells by 1.9 km and also showed some avoidance of jeep 

trails. Bruce et al. (2011) found that sage grouse moved widely across winter habitats, using an area of 1,480 km2, and 

recommended setting aside large reserves for winter habitats. According to Doherty (2008:22), “Identifying and setting 

aside areas of undeveloped, high-quality habitat within the project area should be top priority.” Doherty (2008:22) 

asserted, “My spatially explicit winter habitat model can be used to identify areas in the PRB that provide the best remaining 

habitat for sage-grouse in winter.” BLM should apply this model to the Powder River Basin and place areas predicted to be 

the best remaining sage grouse winter habitat off-limits to future oil and gas leasing, in addition to placing strong restrictions 

on the level of development that is allowed on existing leases. Similar protocols should be developed and followed 

throughout the remainder of the sage grouse range.

WY Both emc0343GB

232. In his 2008 study, Doherty found that distance to roads and distance to wells were good predictors of sage grouse nesting; 

since distance to roads and distance to wells were moderately autocorrelated and roads were a more highly predictive 

modeling variable, distance to wellpads was dropped from the model. According to Doherty (2008:49), “The coefficient for

distance to road (2 distroad = 0.0002) suggested that nesting sage-grouse may avoid CBNG roads.” Model validation later 

caused distance from roads to be dropped from the model. Notably, in the Powder River Basin study area, CBM access 

roads could be either constructed roads or two-tracks. Apparently, distance from wells was not tested during model 

validation, despite being a predictor of nest distribution. Thus, the results of Doherty (2008) can best be characterized as 

inconclusive with respect to the influence of distance to well on nest site selection. Impact of distance to well on breeding 

male population on the lek was not tested by this study. This portion of the study also found nest site selection on larger 

habitat scales, indicating once more that the availability of large tracts of suitable habitat had a positive influence on nest site

selection.

WY Both emc0343GB

233. Holloran (2005) found that well densities greater than one well per 699 acres were correlated with lek declines. Doherty 

et al. (2010) did a statewide analysis in Wyoming and found that well densities greater than 1 well per square mile were 

correlated with sage grouse declines. Modeling by Taylor et al. (2012) determined that drilling a previously undeveloped 

landscape to a density of 4 to 8 wells per square mile would be predicted to cut sage grouse populations in half. Well 

densities can also interact with West Nile virus to accelerate sage grouse declines. Taylor et al. (2010) modeled sage grouse 

population dynamics and determined that increasing well densities from current levels (almost none) to 160-acre spacing in 

the Carter unit could result in a 97% decline of sage grouse populations and the loss of all leks with more than 10 males in 

the face of a West Nile virus outbreak. Notably, the increase of well density to 640 acre spacing in this area would be 

predicted to decrease populations by 11 percent in the absence of West Nile virus, so allowing well densities at 640-acre 

WY Both emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-681

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

spacing is not harmless to sage grouse populations (id.). Similarly Taylor et al. (2012) found that as well densities increase 

to 8 wells per square mile in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, a single West Nile virus outbreak is likely to reduce 

active sage grouse leks from 360 to 6. Importantly, Schrag et al. (2011) examined climate models and predicted increased 

risk of major West Nile outbreaks over current risk levels. These observations support the “no future leasing” approach 

to sage grouse Priority Habitats.

234. Holloran (2005) found that well densities greater than one well per 699 acres were correlated with lek declines. Doherty 

et al. (2010) did a statewide analysis in Wyoming and found that well densities greater than 1 well per square mile were 

correlated with sage grouse declines. Modeling by Taylor et al. (2012) determined that drilling a previously undeveloped 

landscape to a density of 4 to 8 wells per square mile would be predicted to cut sage grouse populations in half. Well 

densities can also interact with West Nile virus to accelerate sage grouse declines. Taylor et al. (2010) modeled sage grouse

population dynamics and determined that increasing well densities from current levels (almost none) to 160-acre spacing in 

the Carter unit could result in a 97% decline of sage grouse populations and the loss of all leks with more than 10 males in 

the face of a West Nile virus outbreak. Notably, the increase of well density to 640 acre spacing in this area would be 

predicted to decrease populations by 11 percent in the absence of West Nile virus, so allowing well densities at 640-acre 

spacing is not harmless to sage grouse populations (id.). Similarly Taylor et al. (2012) found that as well densities increase 

to 8 wells per square mile in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, a single West Nile virus outbreak is likely to reduce 

active sage grouse leks from 360 to 6. Importantly, Schrag et al. (2011) examined climate models and predicted increased 

risk of major West Nile outbreaks over current risk levels. These observations support the “no future leasing” approach 

to sage grouse Priority Habitats.

WY Both emc0343GB

235. The proposed site density of one per square mile is the one scientifically-supported conservation measure applied in the 

Wyoming Core Area strategy that may be seen as an adequate conservation measure. However, under state protocols, it 

is applied across a broader area using a Disturbance Density Calculation Tool (“DDCT”). It is important to note that the 

thresholds for impact to grouse established in the science were determined on a per-square-mile basis, not based on a 

larger area comparable to that developed with the DDCT. The BLM should therefore set its disturbance thresholds per 

square-mile section, rather than employing the DDCT, which could potentially allow disturbance densities much greater 

than 1 site per square mile and thereby result in significant impacts to grouse populations inside Core Area/Priority Habitat 

lands.

WY BLM emc0343GB

236. Under current state and BLM Core Area standards in Wyoming, disturbance thresholds are set at five percent of the land 

area, beyond which additional surface disturbance is not permitted. However, the five percent disturbance threshold 

corresponds with oil and gas well densities that are far beyond the point where sage grouse declines occur. For example, 

under the Continental Divide-Wamsutter Project, 3,000 wells were initially proposed with 22,400 acres of new surface 

disturbance, representing 2.1 percent of the planning area with an average well density of 4 wellsites per square mile (BLM 

2000); today, sage grouse are virtually extirpated in this field, although more than 50 leks existed prior to the project. In the 

Atlantic Rim coalbed methane field, 2,000 wells were permitted at a density of eight wells per square mile, far above the 

threshold known to cause sage grouse declines. The projected surface disturbance for this project is 15,800 acres, or 5.85% 

of the project area (BLM 2005). Clearly, a threshold of five percent is too high to sustain sage grouse. Assuming a 10-acre 

WY BLM emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-682 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.A

Comments Related to Oil and Gas Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

multi-well wellpad and 0.75 miles of road per square mile – a generous figure (at 9.85 acres per mile of road), the estimated 

surface disturbance for a wellfield at one well per square mile would be 2.7 percent. Thus, a one- to three-percent 

disturbance threshold is more reasonable.

237. A collateral impact of coalbed methane development is increased threat of West Nile virus, which is deadly to sage grouse 

(Naugle et al. 2004). Coalbed methane (“CBM”) wastewater ponds are known to provide ideal habitat for the Culex spp. 

Mosquitoes which carry the WNv and infect sage grouse. Mosquito infection with WNv associated with Powder River 

Basin CBM wastewater ponds was demonstrated by Naugle et al. (2004). While West Nile virus has been a lesser cause of 

mortality for sage grouse over the last two years, this does not guarantee that a major outbreak will not sweep across the 

sage grouse range at some time in the near future, as illustrated by the repeated outbreaks of similarly non-native Yersinia 

pestis in black-tailed prairie dogs. West Nile virus is a significant threat to sage grouse, and has contributed to population 

declines (Naugle et al. 2004, 2005). In laboratory experiments, the demonstrated ability of sage grouse to develop immunity 

to this disease has been shown to be very poor (Clark et al. 2006), and resistance to the disease in wild grouse populations 

is very low (Walker et al. 2007). Coalbed methane development in some parts of the sage grouse range has been associated 

with surface disposal of produced water, which typically entails the construction of infiltration reservoirs or local flooding, 

or both. Coalbed methane wastewater ponds have been shown to increase habitat for the Culex spp. Mosquitoes which 

carry the WNv and infect sage grouse (Doherty 2007). In the Powder River Basin, the interaction of West Nile virus with 

standard-density coalbed methane development has been predicted to result in the “functional extirpation” of the 

population (Taylor et al. 2012, see Attachment 2). Indeed, according to these researchers, “if development continues, 

future viability of the already small sage-grouse populations in northeast Wyoming will be compromised.” To add to the 

problem, reservoirs attract sage grouse predators, and as a result Dzialek et al. (2011) recommended siting reservoirs and 

other water features more than 200m from nesting habitat.

WY Both emc0343GB

238. Oil shale development, uranium mining, and strip mining for coal should be excluded from lands within 5 miles of leks Oil 

shale and tar sands development is a principal threat to sage grouse persistence. The BLM’s preferred leasing alternative 

would offer almost 2 million acre area of the sage grouse range for leasing for these types of development (BLM 2007:ES-4). 

Regardless of whether oil shale or tar sands are produced using in situ methods or are mined for surface retorting or 

refining, oil shale and tar sands development represents a 100% land use conversion, leaving no room for other land uses, 

even other types of oil and gas development (see BLM 2007: 6-36 through 6-42). Where oil shale and tar sands 

development occurs, these activities represent a 100% destruction of sage grouse habitat with no potential for mitigation 

of impacts. There is a major overlap between proposed oil shale leasing areas and key sage grouse habitats. See BLM 

(2007:6-49).

WY BLM emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-683

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. Implementation of the proposed action and the possible consequences to an early stage exploration or mining project, or 

one with a large current landholding that is in the queue for future evaluation, needs to be fully identified and analyzed in 

the EIS. Implementation of the proposed action and possible impacts to future prospects that naturally evolve as geologic 

models and technology advances needs to be fully identified and analyzed in the EIS.

All Both rmc0027GB

2. The Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures document (December 21, 2011) recommends the 

withdrawal of lands from mineral entry. The potential acreage that could be withdrawn is unknown as the maps showing 

the "Priority" habitat statewide in Nevada are not yet available. The EIS needs to identify what acreages on a statewide basis 

have been identified for withdrawal and how much of that acreage is currently open to location. If these lands are 

withdrawn, and if sage grouse populations improve, will these lands once again become available for mineral entry? What 

happens to these withdrawals if the sage grouse eventually goes extinct? What happens to these withdrawals if the habitat 

is destroyed by fire or other means? There needs to be a mechanism to restore mineral entry to any withdrawn lands if the 

sage grouse issue goes away or is resolved in the future.

All Both rmc0027GB

3. The Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures document (December 21, 2011) recommends 

making existing mining claims within proposed withdrawals subject to validity exams. Validity exams are not nearly as 

prevalent these days because patenting has gone away. A validity exam is a field examination of an unpatented mining claim 

by a minerals examiner to verify or refute a discovery alleged by a mineral claimant. If there is no discovery within the 

boundaries of the claim, the government can contest the claim. Validity exams are commonly made to resolve conflicts 

between a claim and some other use of the land. Validity exams can be time consuming and expensive for both the claimant 

and the government mineral examiner and should not be considered or required when involving sage grouse habitat.

All Both rmc0027GB

4. Mining is a temporary use on the landscape. The EIS should recognize the temporary nature of mining and recognize that 

the landscape will be reclaimed after mining operations cease. Special consideration should be given to temporary 

operations such as mining and operations that are planned to be reclaimed.

All Both rmc0027GB

5. Lithium is defined as a critical mineral. WLC holds the largest known hectorite deposit in the world and mining these 

deposits could supply the United States with lithium for generations. As a critical mineral, it is important that this lithium 

deposit be reserved as a future domestic resource. Implementation of certain proposed sage grouse conservation 

measures could prohibit WLC from accessing these known resources and could significantly limit (if not eliminate) our 

ability to mine lithium in the future. Under this scenario, the deposit would not be mined, and the United States would not 

be a major producer of lithium. In all likelihood the United States would then be required to import lithium from and be 

dependent on foreign sources.

All Both rmc0027GB

6. Implementation of any sage grouse conservation should not require any industry (including mining) to implement 

mitigation in perpetuity. If mitigation in perpetuity is required, the full details of what is considered "mitigation in 

perpetuity" needs to be clearly identified.

All Both rmc0027GB

7. Considering seasonal restrictions in areas of sage grouse habitat is prohibitive for existing and proposed mining operations.

Because of the nature of mining, use of heavy equipment and plant operations, it is not feasible, practical, or economical to 

operate with seasonal or hourly restrictions. Conservation measures imposing seasonal and hourly restrictions should 

only be placed when feasible, practical, and economical, such as for certain exploration activities (which is current BlM 

All Both rmc0027GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-684 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

policy in some instances where sage grouse habitat may be impacted).

8. All mining operations strive to implement best management practices whenever possible. It is good business sense. Best 

management practices and all measures identified through the EIS process need to be feasible, practical, and economical to 

both small and large mining operations, to exploration projects and to all types of industries (including small ranchers and 

local governments).

All Both rmc0027GB

9. There is strong evidence from the scientific literature to support the fact that surface-disturbing energy or mineral 

development within sage-grouse habitats is not consistent with a goal to maintain or increase populations or distribution. 

None of the published science describes a positive influence of this type of development on sage-grouse populations or 

their habitats. Breeding populations are reduced severely at well pad densities commonly permitted by the BLM. The 

magnitude of losses varies from one field to another, but findings suggest that impacts are universally negative and typically 

severe.

All Both emc0074GB

10. Recommendation #7 - We recommend that the conservation strategy most likely to meet the objective of maintaining or 

increasing sage-grouse distribution and abundance is to exclude energy development and other large-scale disturbances 

from priority sage grouse (core) habitats, and where valid existing rights exist, we recommend that impacts from these 

developments be minimized by keeping disturbances to 1 per section or less, with direct surface-disturbance impacts

held to 3% of the area or less,

All Both emc0074GB

11. Exempt mining activities on lands where the mining disturbance is below the land surface from sage grouse restrictions. All Both rmc0004GB

12. Implementation of the proposed action and the possible consequences to an early stage exploration or mining project, or 

one with a large current landholding that is in the queue for future evaluation, needs to be fully identified and analyzed in 

the EIS. Implementation of the proposed action and possible impacts to future prospects that naturally evolve as geologic 

models and

technology advances needs to be fully identified and analyzed in the EIS.

All Both rmc0029GB

13. The Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures document (December 21, 2011) recommends the 

withdrawal of lands from mineral entry. WEDC strenuously objects to this approach unless all other public entry and 

access is also prohibited. The EIS process should methodically and completely examine the effects of and defend, if possible, 

the implementation of such a pointed and selective action which targets one use group so specifically. The EIS needs to

identify what acreages on a statewide basis have been identified for withdrawal and how much of that acreage is currently 

open to location. In addition, the EIS should evaluate the mineral and mineral exploration potential of all identified lands to 

determine if acreage with high mineral potential is indeed best suited by withdrawal from mineral entry. This is not an 

option to be taken lightly. Also, if indeed these lands are withdrawn are they to be closed to mineral entry forever? If

sage-grouse populations improve, will these lands once again become available for mineral entry? What happens to such 

withdrawals jf the sage grouse eventually goes extinct? What happens to withdrawn lands if the habitat is destroyed by fire 

or other means? There needs to be a mechanism to restore mineral entry to any withdrawn lands if the sage grouse issue 

goes away

or is resolved in the future. Since the national BLM website states that the Sage-Grouse is probably an indicator that many 

All Both rmc0029GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-685

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

species are equally at risk, will the lands withdrawn become a de facto nature preserve?

14. The Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures document (December 21, 2011) recommends 

making existing mining claims within proposed withdrawals subject to validity exams. Validity exams are not nearly as 

prevalent these days because patenting has gone away. A validity exam is a field examination of an unpatented mining claim 

by a minerals examiner to verify or refute a discovery alleged by a mineral claimant. If there is no discovery within the

boundaries of the claim, the government can contest the claim. Validity exams are commonly made to resolve conflicts 

between a claim and some other use of the land. Validity exams can be time consuming and expensive for both the claimant 

and the government mineral examiner and should not be considered or required when involving sage grouse habitat. 

Unless perhaps the

ultimate goal of the action is to remove the affected lands from all public entry.

All Both rmc0029GB

15. The initial designation of potential sage grouse habitat appears to be very broad and general, and affect tens of millions of 

acres across the western U.S. The amount of land that mining actually impacts, especially in the state of Nevada, is a 

fraction of identified sage grouse habitat. The proposed EIS should identify the actual acreage of land that mining occupies 

vs. the amount of land designated as sage grouse habitat. Due to the small fraction of land occupied by mining, mining 

should not be prohibited or withdrawn in areas designated as sage grouse habitat (either Priority or General Habitat).

All Both rmc0029GB

16. Mining and mineral exploration are temporary uses of the public lands. The EIS should recognize the temporary nature of 

mining and mineral exploration, recognizing that the landscape will be reclaimed after these operations cease. Special 

consideration should be given to temporary operations such as mining and mineral exploration, where reclamation is 

mandated by law, supervised by the BLM and bonded. Mining and mineral exploration (as well as the other natural

resource industries) is perhaps the best and most likely - and often the most willing - partner in effecting meaningful and 

long lasting change to the local environment surrounding their operations. Why preclude someone who can actually help 

achieve the desired result?

All Both rmc0029GB

17. Seasonal restrictions in areas of sage grouse habitat are prohibitive for existing and proposed mining operations. Because 

of the nature of mining, use of heavy equipment and plant operations, it is not feasible, practical, or economical to operate 

with seasonal or hourly restrictions Conservation measures imposing seasonal and hourly restrictions should only be

placed when feasible, practical, and economical, such as for certain exploration activities (which is current BLM policy in 

some instances where sage grouse habitat may be impacted).

All Both rmc0029GB

18. The BLM and USFS have anticipated sage grouse conservation efforts and highly restrictive conditions aiming at conserving 

sage grouse are already being written into mining permits. The current socio-economic impacts of sage grouse 

conservation efforts are much greater than anyone is acknowledging. I believe that many people are hesitant to 

acknowledge this because they fear retribution in the form of costly delays in permitting. It is difficult, if not impossible, to 

relax policies once they are in place, especially if those policies are included in land-use plans. The socio-economic impacts 

of these policies have not been studied. I request that an economic baseline study inclusive of all socio-economic impacts 

due to land-use restrictions for sage grouse conservation be completed and incorporated into the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS). This should be a standard baseline study conducted by scientific experts in the field of economics.

All Both emc171GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-686 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

19. It would be irresponsible to modify public land-use plans to negatively affect mining through highly restrictive conservation 

measures without scientific indications that the measures will have a positive effect on sage grouse populations. I request 

that an online repository for the scientific studies used in the planning process be created and made available to the public, 

including data used to designate priority habitats.

All Both emc171GB

20. One land-use restriction currently in place is a two mile non-disturbance buffer around known leks. If you look at the sage 

grouse population density map distributed by the BLM and USFS it becomes apparent that two mile buffers around leks 

may restrict many mining and mineral exploration activities.

All Both emc171GB

21. The interim management guidance given in the BLM IM_2012-043 gives little guidance for locatable mineral mining. The 

guidance given is vague and could be interpreted many ways. This leaves room for inconsistent and extreme restrictions as 

conditions of mining permits. I request that clear, detailed and consistent sage grouse conservation measures for the 

locatable mineral mining industry be given in land-use plans.

All Both emc171GB

22. Also where the coal mine is concerned you should replace when the area is recovered replace the area with sagebrush for 

habitat.

All Both cfc0039GB

23. Mining and mineral exploration can be a very valuable tool in the re-establishment of habitat favorable to Greater 

Sage-grouse and other animal species. The mining industry often operates in areas where rangeland has been harmed by 

fires, overgrazing and other habtat destructive forces. Areas where subsequent mining reclaimation has taken place creates 

"islands" of native species. This can often be seen in areas where fires have burned the native plants and cheat grass has 

moved in. We reclaim our disturbances with seed mix prescribed by either the BLM or the Forest Service. Once the seeds 

germinate and begin to grow they can provide seed sources for native plants to force out invasive species. Working 

together with the government agencies, the mining industry can help to reclaim habitat and return it to more productive 

state.

All Both cfc0045GB

24. As you are well aware, the potential impacts of the policies regarding the sage grouse are immense. Sage grouse habitat 

covers significant areas of 11 Western states, and policies under consideration to protect the birds and their habitat have 

the potential to impact our members' proposed and existing mining operations in many of the affected states. In addition, 

DOI appears to be implementing policies suggesting that in some areas, over 97% of sage grouse habitat will essentially be 

withdrawn from activity, without any Secretarial order for such withdrawal, rulemaking, or statutory authorization.

All Both emc0075GB

25. Mineral/oil with active reclaiming of the Land (Alton Mine) is working. All Both cfc0057GB

26. If disturbance associated with hard rock mining can scientifically only account for a small percent of the threat level to a 

species relative to other threats, this needs to be weighed against the severity of the management measures. For example, 

in the December 27,2011 BLM press release it is suggested that a potential conservation measure may include the 

"human-caused disturbance in priority habitat would be limited to less than 2.5 % of the species' total habitat, regardless of 

surface ownership". But if the potential is 90 times greater for a wildfire to impact the sage grouse habitat in an area than 

for the cumulative impacts from human-caused disturbance, the negative socio-economic impacts resulting from project 

denials becomes significantly greater than any positive habitat conservation.

All Both emc0102GB

27. The EIS must carefully consider the effects that proposed sage grouse conservation measures mighthave on mineral All Both emc0310GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-687

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

exploration and mining activities, and ensure that any measures adopted avoid or minimize adverse impacts on these 

activities. In this context, the EIS must recognize existing laws, requirements and policies governing public lands with 

respect to mineral exploration and mining including, but not limited to, the General Mining law of 1872, the Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act of 1970 and the Federal land and Policy Management Act of 1976.

28. "Close priority sage grouse habitats to fluid mineral leasing." No! That is taking. May put in timing guidelines and stay back 

from lek. Who would enforce this?

All Both cfc0025RM

29. Under 43 CFR 3809, earth-disturbing activities by exploration and mining companies must be reclaimed as near as possible 

to pre-existing landform and plant communities. Reclamation permits in areas of invasive pinion/juniper and cheatgrass do 

or can require reseeding with seed mixes appropriate for sage-grouse habitat. To the extent that earth-disturbing activities 

occur in pinion/juniper- and cheatgrass-invaded areas, reclamation can only improve habitat for sage-grouse.

All Both emc0042GB

30. The BLM, Forest Service, and exploration and mining companies working together in the reclamation permitting process, 

and where appropriate on a road by road or site by site basis, can increase the amount of quality habitat for sage-grouse 

by the following:

1. Perform disturbance in pinion/juniper and cheatgrass areas. This disturbance will be revegetated to sagebrush 

ecosystem.

2. Site roads the "long way around" to avoid sage-grouse habitat.

3. Encourage operators to utilize the above strategies, even though they may cost more, through special classification of 

resulting disturbed acreage and not aggregating it toward the permitted disturbance limit (e.g., the five acres for 

notice-level disturbance with the BLM).

All Both emc0042GB

31. Congress has long recognized this country's substantial interest in developing its domestic minerals base for the benefit of 

the American public. In the General Mining Law of 1872, Congress declared that all valuable mineral deposits on the federal 

lands shall be free and open to exploration and purchase. 30 U.S.C. § 22. In the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 

U.S.C. § 21a), Congress again articulated the longstanding federal policy to encourage mineral exploration and 

development:

[I]t is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise 

in (1) the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation 

industries, (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources, reserves and reclamation of metals 

and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs....

This policy of protecting the rights of the public to explore for and develop locatable minerals was expressly incorporated 

into the current BLM land-use planning framework established under the Federal Land and Policy Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA). Among the key policies established in FLPMA, Congress directed that the public lands continue to be managed 

in a manner that recognizes this Nation's need for minerals and in a manner that implements the Mining and Minerals Policy 

Act of 1970. 43 U.S.C. § 1701(12). Congress expressly provided that the land-use planning directives under FLPMA shall 

not "in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but 

not limited to, rights of ingress and egress" to public lands for mineral exploration and development. 43 U.S.S. § 1732(b). 

All Both emc0084GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-688 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Consistent with these legal mandates, the sage-grouse EISs should carefully consider the effects that potential sage-grouse 

conservation measures may have on mineral exploration and mining activities, and ensure that the adopted measures avoid 

or minimize adverse impacts on these types of activities.

32. It is obvious that economically important mineral deposits are not ubiquitous, and occur only in locations that possess 

unique geologic characteristics. Thus, mineral exploration and mining activities must occur in the specific areas where 

minerals of interest occur or are likely to occur, and may not readily be relocated. Any conservation measures adopted by 

the BLM and FS should recognize this reality. Thus, absolute prohibitions on mineral exploration or mining activities in 

particular areas should be avoided, and measures allowing onsite or offsite mitigation to offset documented impacts to 

sage-grouse should be allowed. A variety of onsite and offsite mitigation options should be considered, including:

- Vegetation planting, vegetation rehabilitation and thinning to provide for ecologically diverse habitat with an appropriate 

mix of successional types based on the Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) prepared by the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service;

- Rehabilitation of areas impacted by fire, non-native invasive species or other disturbance to establish appropriate 

successional species, such as perennial grasses and forbs, and eventually big sagebrush communities;

- Enhancement of existing sage-grouse habitat to provide an appropriate mix of vegetation types to support the life history 

needs of sage grouse;

- Use of conservation easements or other land-use covenants to provide habitat protection; and

- Use of "mitigation funds" or "mitigation banks" that would provide for pooling of mitigation monies to implement larger 

habitat protection and improvement measures. Such funds could be managed by appropriate wildlife agencies or third 

parties.

Such approaches must be provided in an appropriate alternative and/or as components of alternatives considered in the 

EISs.

All Both emc0084GB

33. Any use of seasonal or other timing restrictions must be carefully structured. While some mineral exploration projects can 

accommodate such restrictions, many mineral development and mining projects cannot. Modern mining operations often 

require huge capital investments and a large, well-trained work force, which mandate that operations occur on a 

continuous basis. The EISs need to consider the potential impacts that any proposed timing restrictions would have on 

mineral exploration and mining, and ensure that such measures are compatible with such activities. Any conservation 

measures should allow the option of mitigating measureable impacts through other onsite or offsite measures that allow 

for continuous operations.

All Both emc0084GB

34. The Report identifies potential conservation measures applicable to mineral development that are inconsistent with 

federal law, are unnecessary for protection and improvement of sage-grouse habitat, and may have dramatic adverse 

socio-economic effects. In particular, for the locatable minerals program, the Report suggests that priority sage-grouse 

habitat be proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry (p. 24). The Report suggests that all mining claims within priority 

habitat be subject to "validity patent exams or buy-out" as part of a mineral withdrawal process. The Report provides no 

scientific basis to support any such broad-scale mineral withdrawal. Moreover, any proposal requiring systematic 

All Both emc0084GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-689

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

condemnation of all mining claims within priority sage-grouse habitat would be contrary to Congress' repeated recognition 

that the public lands should generally remain open to mineral entry and development of this nation's minerals base, as 

summarized in Section IV of these comments. Moreover, Section 204 of FLPMA provides specific procedures that the 

Department of the Interior must follow in order to withdraw public lands from mining. 43 U.S.C. § 1714. It would be 

unlawful for RMPs or LMPs to attempt to close any lands within the planning area to mineral entry through land-use 

management actions or other prescriptions.

35. Having worked in the field most of my career, what I have observed is in the late 1970s and early '80s Sage Grouse were 

plentiful. Now indeed they appear to be less so. This has occurred at the same time as logarithmic increases in delays and 

costs associated with regulations, policies, procedures, interim management plans and the biases and whims of specialists 

in the BLM and Forest Service field offices. Now that the Sage-Grouse is being considered for listing as an endangered 

species the interim management solution appears to be to pile on more regulations on the mining industry. This includes

additional base line studies, regulating seasons of activity and even proposing restricting areas from mining activity.

All Both emc0091GB

36. It appears to me that the BLM instead of focusing on more onerous regulations on mining which will not solve the Sage 

Grouse problem should instead be spending their assets on rehabilitating the vast areas of range now covered by cheat 

grass. It appears to me that the special interest groups that oppose mining are just putting pressure on the Federal agencies 

to increase regulation and drive mining off Federal land instead of desiring to deal with the real problem of improving the 

habitat that has been destroyed by range fires.

All Both emc0091GB

37. What I don’t believe in is more regulations on mining and ranching as they are an insignificant part of the problem. As for 

mining, I believe we need to stream line the permitting process to eliminate unnecessary delays and costs. In no way am I 

in favor of returning to the unregulated days prior to 1981. But I do believe that current regulations and delays have already 

become too cumbersome and costly. We don’t need to add to them. They are now stunting the growth of good jobs and 

are having a negative impact on our economy in both Nevada and America.

All Both emc0091GB

38. Mineral deposits are not ubiquitous on the land and occur only in locations that possess unique geologic characteristics. 

Any conservation measures contemplated in the EIS must recognize this reality and refrain from absolute prohibitions of 

mineral exploration or mining in any particular area. Rather, mitigation and offsets should be allowed which may include 

revegetation, rehabilitation, enhancement of existing habitats, use of conservation easements or other land use covenants, 

and the use of mitigation funds or mitigation banks.

All Both emc0310GB

39. The EIS must specifically define and address how Valid Existing Rights (VER) will be recognized and protected. All Both emc0310GB

40. The EIS and each alternative must specifically identify and quantify the acreage of lands potentially subject to withdrawal for 

mineral entry. The EIS and alternatives must also identify a method or processfor restoring those areas for use if habitat 

improves or if new data or information becomes available indicating such use does not jeopardize sage grouse populations.

All Both emc0310GB

41. The EIS should evaluate land use restrictions based upon an "equivalency" basis to the lands disturbed and/or occupied by 

a particular industry or sector. The EIS must weigh the impacts and benefits of mandating mineral and mining withdrawals 

in all habitat types.

All Both emc0310GB

42. The EIS and its alternatives must fully evaluate any land uses involving seasonal restrictions. The very nature of mining All Both emc0031GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-690 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

activities (and many other uses on public lands) makes such restrictions inappropriate, impractical and infeasible.

43. If validity patent exams or buy-outs are proposed in any of the EIS alternatives, the scientific and legal basis must be 

provided for such actions. Such actions are inconsistent with Congress' repeated recognition that public lands must 

generally remain open to mineral entry and development. Additionally, if such measures are proposed, the EIS must 

address the provisions of Section 204 of FLPMA and the procedures that the Department of Interior must follow in order 

to withdraw public lands from mining, as well as fully consider socioeconomic and cumulative effect impacts related to

these actions.

All Both emc0310GB

44. The EIS must define, expand upon and determine the impacts of any actions contained in the BLM document "A Report on 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures" that are to be included in any alternative as a management 

measure. This includes, but is not limited to, withdrawals from mineral entry, the "maximum 3% disturbance area, fencing 

restrictions and setbacks, acquisitions of rights of way, delays in obtaining use permits for projects, dissolution or removal 

of existing rights of -ways and the removal or burying of existing or proposed pipelines, fences, ditches, utility lines or other 

infrastructure on public lands.

All Both emc0310GB

45. The EIS must ciearly define and justify the baseline for both species population and habitat, further designated by public 

versus private ownership. This is critical to evaluate the need, extent, and associated impacts of any proposed new public 

land use restrictions. Absent this critical review, it is conceivable that the hard rock mining industry could suffer an undue 

burden of restrictive land use measures, despite being ranked near the bottom of the USFWS list of sage grouse threats.

All Both emc0310GB

46. I support the NTT recommendation of "excluding mineral development and other large scale disturbances from priority 

habitats." I would also like to see it taken a step further and have no leasing within a 4 mile buffer of leks. Research has 

shown that even a 4 mile buffer would only protect 75%- 80% of nesting hens. Given the NTT goal of "maintain and / or 

increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution", this research should lead to a 4 mile buffer at a minimum.

All Both emc0064RM

47. Total distrubed acreage due to mining in the US is several million acres. It is overwhelmed by the acreage of habitated 

ground (human). All are overwhelmed by suitable sage-grouse habitat.

All Both cfc0067GB

48. Continue to utilize partnerships and funding available from mineral interests. All Both emc0137GB

49. The National Technical Team, in "A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures", cites BLM impacts 

of oil and gas drilling in Wyoming to justify withdrawal of sage grouse habitat to mining and mineral exploration activities. 

This assumes impacts of oil and gas exploration are directly comparable to mineral exploration and mining and fails to take 

into account differences in size and temporal scope of disturbance vis-à-vis these two activities

All Both emc0168GB

50. Mineral exploration drill rigs are much smaller than those used in oil and gas exploration and produce a correspondingly 

smaller disturbance footprint. Additionally, there is a range of options available in developing a mineral deposit, including 

underground mining and hauling waste rock out sensitive areas and dumping it elsewhere, which can potentially minimize 

the impacts of mining on sage grouse habitat. Where adverse impacts to habitat due to mining are unavoidable, it may be 

possible to offset these by developing or enhancing suitable habitat elsewhere within the species range.

All Both emc0168GB

51. The BLM has historically been very successful in developing strategies to mitigate the environmental effects of mining and 

mineral exploration while simultaneously facilitating a productive industry in accordance with multiple-use policies. 

All Both emc0168GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-691

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Wholesale withdrawal oflarge areas of Nevada to mining and mineral exploration, an industry which is vital to the local and 

national economies, is an extraordinarily unimaginative and uncreative approach to addressing the impacts of this activity 

on sage grouse habitat.

52. In Nevada, economics takes precedence over protection of the sage grouse and its environment. The Nevada BLM 

authorizes mining, geothermal development, power lines, windmills, and energy corridors with only a cursory notification 

to the Shoshone. These projects damage the land and leks, and the waste materials from these projects poisons the birds. 

Sage hen and other wildlife drink water contaminated by methylmercury, cyanide, and other chemicals and solvents from 

the gold mines. Lithium, uranium, and molybdenum mines have come to the area with their pollutants.

All Both emc0170GB

53. AdditionaIly, the BLM must analyze impacts to mineral and energy resources as if the lands were open to development 

under standard lease agreements.

All Both emc0337GB

54. Land uses that do not conflict with sage grouse management should not be unnecessarily restricted. One example is 

underground mining of oil shale or other natural resources.

All Both emc0242GB

55. FPLMA directs that management of the public lands "in a manner which recognizes the need for domestic sources of 

minerals" 43 U.S. C.1701(11 )-(12) including phosphate. In addition BLM's 2006 Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy 

emphasizes the importance of mining on public lands and endorses "multiple use" as a guiding principle for land use 

management. The policy states BLM land use planning and multiple use management decisions will recognize that, with few

exceptions, mineral exploration and development can occur concurrently or sequentially with other resource uses and 

describes that the least restrictive stipulations that effectively accomplish the resource objectives or uses will be used

All Both emc0400GB

56. In addition it is hoped that the BLM will thoroughly consider the fact that minerals including phosphate occupy an 

extremely small percentage of the available public lands and as such are located only where they are found. The occurrence 

of minerals cannot be moved or re-routed unlike many other potential land uses.

All Both emc0400GB

57. The NOI states, "The RMP arrd LMP amerrdments/revisions will recognize valid existing rights." We concur that revisions 

to RMPs and LMPs must recognize valid existing rigltts.

All Both fxc0006GB

58. This is a very complex issue with the potential to impact mining and mineral development in NW Colorado. We all need 

more time to analyze information and provide thoughtful responses.

All Both cfc0009RM

59. Mineral Development. #1 NTR - ok. 

#2 ok

#3 Maintainence may be crucial (usually is) on existing producing wells. Guidance should be case by case.

All Both cfc0025RM

60. Specific management prescriptions that should be mandatory for ACECs designated for sage-grouse protection should 

include, at a minimum: Mineral withdrawal, both immediate under Section 204 of FLPMA and recommendation for 

permanent withdrawal (per Manual 1613.33.C);

All Both emc0234GB

61. BLM should put the following management prescriptions in place for LWCs at a minimum: Mineral Withdrawl; All Both emc0234GB

62. I'm writing to add my support for restricting the overreach of the BLM in removing mineral access from the range of the 

sage grouse. There is not sufficient science to show definite harm to the grouse's range by mining operations. Grouse can 

easily live in harmony with mining operations and can even be benefited by typical reclamation efforts.

All BLM emc0027RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-692 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

63. Please do not allow the expansion of Alton Coal's strip mining as this also will be harmful. All Both emc0264GB

64. Surface coal mining in the United States is one of the most heavily regulated activities currently allowed under federal law. 

As a result, consensus and agreement must be sought and secured to ensure biologically achievable and economically 

sustainable strategies are incorporated into premine planning, mine planning, and reclamation planning. The location of 

economically

available coal reserves cannot be moved, and the incorporation of additional mandatory practices and/or procedures 

further reduces the likelihood mining companies will continue to support existing operations and seek development of 

future reserves. Uncertainty within the current regulatory environment is affecting industry activity, not only in Colorado 

but nationally. Permitting new disturbance areas that may impact Greater Sage Grouse populations is already problematic, 

as several entities, specifically the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 

Bureau of Land Management and of course the US Fish and Wildlife Service have the opportunity to direct or at least 

provide input on the strategies ultimately negotiated and accepted for minimization/mitigation of impacts to the Greater 

Sage-Grouse.

All Both emc0270GB

65. Not unlike the BLM's mandate for promoting "multiple-use," Colowyo is mandated through our reclamation program to 

achieve the approved post-mining land use targeted for areas disturbed by mining activity. Colowyo's reclamation strategy 

currently incorporates and promotes not only future livestock grazing and hunting opportunities, but wildlife habitat 

creation andenhancement. A significant component of Colowyo's plan includes the mandate to specifically create Greater 

Sage Grouse habitat on reclamation areas. Colowyo is also a signatory and supporter of several multi-stakeholder 

management agreements in the Axial Basin that support and engage in direct habitat enhancement activities for a number 

of wildlife species, including grouse.

Much of the work that has been done to date has helped to maintain local populations of Greater Sage Grouse in this area 

at a biologically sustainable level. To that point, Colowyo does not believe it is appropriate to target the industrial partners 

of these agreements with additional costs and encumbrances as an appropriate course of action given their foresight, 

diligence and support.

All Both emc0270GB

66. Although the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not recognize voluntary efforts of private landowners (specifically 

energy/mining companies) as equal to activities mandated by law, it is Colowyo's contention that the Greater Sage Grouse 

would be far more imperiled without them. It is not clear at this point in the process whether these voluntary programs 

would be continued in the future should the ability to disturb areas within the reaches of "designated Greater Sage

Grouse habitat" be severely cmiailed or the costs associated with securing the right to disturb increase significantly.

All Both emc0270GB

67. Colowyo recommends that the regulatory processes currently in place for evaluation, minimization and mitigation of

wildlife impacts from coal mining activities be appropriately recognized and credited when considering modification of 

existing and future mine plan and permit application processes.

All Both emc0270GB

68. Colowyo also recommends that the Bureau of Land Management place significant value and emphasis on maintaining and 

promoting avenues for mitigation of mining activity impacts through reclamation planning and off-site mitigation 

All Both emc0270GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-693

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

opportunities rather than precluding necessary disturbance outright. Once again, regulatory framework is already in 

existence and

functioning well through the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement/Colorado Division of Reclamation, 

Mining and Safety. Additional parallel processes will lead to confusion and increased likelihood of conflicts between 

agencies on technical or philosophical grounds.

69. A necessary requirement for mining at this location is the ability to operate a continual operation 24 hours a day, 365 clays 

a year. Seasonal restrictions are not a tool that can be practically or economically implemented at most mining operations, 

including this one. Customers for the coal Coloywo provides are dependent on a steady, uninterrupted supply throughout 

the year, and do not typically maintain storage facilities large enough to accommodate major increases in supply inventory.

All Both emc0270GB

70. For multiple mandated regulatory reasons, surface coal mining operations require a significant localized disturbance 

footprint in order to function effectively and safely. Current regulatory requirements ensure that excessive disturbance 

does not occur in areas where habitat for sensitive wildlife species exists and mitigation efforts are incorporated into both 

day-to-day and

long-term operational planning, culminating in final reclamation liability release.

All Both emc0270GB

71. On Page 14, Proposed Land Withdrawals (on BLM- and USFS-managed lands), the first bullet statement suggests mineral 

withdrawals within priority sage-grouse habitat areas. This section doesn’t distinguish between locatable minerals (gold,

silver, copper and other metallic minerals, and some industrial minerals) and leasable minerals (oil & gas, geothermal, coal, 

sodium, potassium and phosphate), and mineral materials (sand and gravel and other “common variety minerals”).

There are different mechanisms for “withdrawing” these categories of minerals. Mineral withdrawal applies only to 

locatable minerals and should not be used as a general method of making the various types of minerals unavailable for

development. For leasable minerals, the area is closed to leasing. Disposal of mineral materials is a discretionary action and 

if management chooses, with justification, sales may be denied. Prior to any “mineral withdrawal,” the mineral potential of 

the area(s) should be determined, using existing federal, state and local literature (BLM Prospectively Valuable Maps for 

example), and non-proprietary industry information, to assure that no mineral deposits are available for development. 

Mining or other development of other mineral commodities can occur in sage-grouse habitat areas with proper mitigation, 

such as off-site

mitigation, no surface occupancy or seasonal restrictions, directional drilling for oil and gas, geothermal, or other 

operations that require drilling. These methods may be used, assuming that the reservoir characteristics and spatial 

limitations of the

lease area are such that these methods can be implemented. “Withdrawal” (used in the generic sense in the Conservation 

Measures) should be a method of last resort, and only if there is no potential for deposits within the proposed

“withdrawal” area.

All Both emc0271GB

72. Page 23, fourth bullet, states, “Complete Master Development Plans in lieu of Application for Permit to Drill (APD)-by 

APD processing for all but wildcat wells. This process is already in place. The BLM, as the delegated authority of the

Department of the Interior, oversees all locatable and leasable minerals on federally managed lands in cooperation with 

other federal, state and local regulators. The BLM prepares leasing EA/EIS’s for areas suitable for leasing (not just for oil and 

All Both emc0271GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-694 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

gas, but for all leasable minerals). The leasing EA/EIS identifies broad based environmental concerns, eg., wildlife habitat, 

T&E concerns, cultural resources, etc., and provides special stipulations (seasonal restrictions, no surface occupancy, 

closed to leasing), and these leasing stipulations are documented in the agencies' land use plans. When an APD is filed, an 

environmental study is

conducted to identify site-specific concerns. The special stipulations identified in the leasing EA/EIS as well as any 

site-specific concerns are mitigated in the approval of the APD.

73. Page 24, Locatable Minerals, first sub-bullet, “Make any existing claims within the withdrawal area subject to validity patent 

exams or buy out. Include claims that have been subsequently determined to be null and void in the withdrawal.

Comments:

• The term validity patent exams have no meaning here. Since 1995, there has been a moratorium on accepting new 

mineral patent applications, and all that were in place at that time should have already been processed to final disposition.

• The proper term is validity examination. However, many are of the opinion that a validity examination is a method of 

extinguishing the rights of a mining claimant. This process is only to determine if the claim(s) support a discovery of a

valuable mineral deposit (a legal and economic term) pursuant to the 1872 mining law. If the claim(s) support a discovery, 

mining will be allowed, with mitigation measures to minimize degradation to the environment, including sage-grouse

habitat. If no discovery, the claim will be contested by the BLM subject to appeals by the claimant.

• To suggest claim “buy out” sets a precedent that any claim(s) that support a discovery could be bought out. This could 

result in a great expense to the Federal Government. Such mitigation could lead to a “buy out” of any claims where it is

determined a resource (cultural, wildlife, T&E, etc.) has more value than the mineral deposit.

• Any claim(s) that have been determined to be null and void are, as the name implies, no longer in existence. If the area is 

withdrawn, no new locations can be made.

All Both emc0271GB

74. Current regulations, implemented during the exploration permitting process, mitigate damage to habitats and actually help 

to remove invasive species by seeding. Only a tiny fraction of mining claims ever see any disturbance. Where disturbance

does occur, it is typically comprised of relatively narrow roads and small-footprint drill pads that Sage Grouse can easily 

avoid. Most traffic on exploration roads is limited to relatively brief periods of time when drilling is in progress. The ratio 

between undeveloped mining claims and successful developed mining projects ranges from 1000:1 to 100:1. The small 

footprints associated with unsuccessful exploration projects are rapidly reclaimed with native seed and the impact to Sage 

Grouse habitat it could be argued is negligible.

All Both emc0272GB

75. Introduction and Position Statement TC respectfully requests that the federal land management agencies (BLM and U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS)) engaged in developing the subject EIS:

-Recognize the viability and value of the coal industry's extensive regulatory requirements and related existing regulatory 

mechanisms, which provide protections for the greater sage grouse

- Preserve, actively support, and incentivize the extensive voluntary research and on-the-ground efforts to protect and 

conserve the greater sage grouse and its habitat that have been undertaken for more than a decade by a diverse group of 

energy companies, landowners and land-users, as reflected in the existing Colorado Greater Sage Grouse Conservation 

All Both emc0071RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-695

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Plan

76. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and a number of other existing regulatory mechanisms 

incorporate specific provisions designed to protect and mitigate impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat during the planning, 

leasing, permitting, operation, and reclamation of coal mines. The following response by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), in its November 10, 2010 review letter to the State of Wyoming (attached) concerning the refmed core 

population area strategy developed and revised by the Govemo's Sage Grouse Implementation Team is important and 

relevant to the more detailed discussion that follows:

"Your third specific question asked if permitting pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) is 

adequate to protect sage-grouse in core areas. The provisions for conservation of Federal trust species, including 

candidates such as Greater sage-grouse, under SMCRA and its implementing regulations, are sufficient for conservation of

this species."

All Both emc0071RM

77. Coal Mining Regulatory Framework Overview - The coal m1mng industry operates under a substantial regulatory 

framework covering all aspects of the mining process; from exploration and leasing, to reclamation and eventual release of 

reclamation performance bonds, as summarized in a subsequent section. This regulatory regime includes requirements for 

protection and mitigation of wildlife, and mitigation or reclamation of wildlife habitat which is designated, along with 

livestock grazing, as an approved postmining land use for TC's mining operations. Reclamation plans designed to return 

lands to conditions which will support the approved postmining land use( s) are developed, reviewed and approved by the 

appropriate regulatory, wildlife, and land management agencies.

All Both emc0071RM

78. Coal mines are required to develop and implement very detailed, specific life-of-mine mining and reclamation plans. Permit 

commitment and applicable federal and state laws are strictly enforced to assure that all affected lands are reclaimed, 

consistent with the approved postmining land use(s). Further, these laws require that reclamation must be completed 

contemporaneously with the mining process. As previously noted, TCs coal mine in Northwest Colorado will be 

reclaimed to a dual postmine land use of livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. Stringent reclamation standards are in place

for re-establishing rangeland and wildlife habitat on the postmining landscape. The coal mining industry has been very 

progressive and innovative in developing effective reclamation techniques. Availability and utilization of native plant 

materials has aided in this success. Grouse use of reclaimed plant communities providing summer foraging and 

brood-rearing habitat has been documented at TC's mining operations.

All Both emc0071RM

79. Alternatives Should Allow for Multiple Use- Alternatives presented in an EIS should balance the need for sage-grouse 

protection with due regard for multiple-use mandates contained in other federal law including the Multiple Use Sustained 

Yield Act of 1960, 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-31; the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, 16 U.S.C. 

§§1600-14; and the national Forest Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600 et seq. For lands managed by the BLM, the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides in Section 302 that;

"[t} he Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield." 42 U.S. C.§ 1732(a). 

All Both emc0071RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-696 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Furthermore, FLPMA requires management of the public lands "in a manner which recognizes the Nation 's need for 

domestic sources of minerals. " 43 U.S. C. § 1701(11)-(12)

In 2006, the importance of mining on public lands was acknowledged, and BLM endorsed multiple-use for land-use 

management in its 2006 Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy, which states that, with few exceptions, mineral exploration 

and development can occur concurrently or sequentially with other resource uses, and further indicates that the least 

restrictive stipulations that effectively accomplish the resource objectives or uses will be used. See BLM 2006 policy at p. 

2. TC contends that the numerous directives in federal land management statutes and agency policy must continue to be 

honored in any alternatives crafted to protect the greater sage-grouse.

80. With regards to transmission lines, pipelines, and mines, the same rules apply as do for oil and gas development, road 

development, and other leasing development. Referencing my previous number of no more than five total sites of 

development with a 5.5 radius of a lek, regardless of its activity, all considerations for transmission lines, pipelines, and

mines will be included in this total of five.

All Both emc0074RM

81. The narrative of this section of the document appears to have been written separately of the rest of the document. It takes 

a resounding negative view of energy development (at any density) but does not separate out cause and effect of the 

different components of the process in order to address specific threats that can then be effectively mitigated (e.g. Ramey, 

Brown, and Blackgoat 2011). This view is very unfortunate because it is a clear indication that only purpose for the NTT, 

the strategy and subsequent RMP amendments is to control development of fossil fuels -- while fast-tracking renewable 

energy projects despite the fact that they have much larger transmission line and wind turbine far footprints than oil and 

gas for instance.

We question the validity of the assertion that, "findings suggest that impacts are universally negative and typically severe." 

This would only be the case in the most heavily developed areas, and where older and more invasive technologies were 

used with little or no mitigation undertaken. While sage grouse have been found to avoid areas of intensive development, 

such avoidance is not uniform among locations that have a lower density of development, or in older fields that have 

already been developed (Harju et al. 2010; Taylor in prep.). Additionally, it is not clear whether the research cited had 

documented actual population declines, or displacement from affected leks and relocation elsewhere. Statistically valid 

population estimates are needed to resolve this issue and to understand the specific mechanisms that explain why sage 

grouse may be affected. The situation is not as clear-cut as the authors of this section of the Report claim.

All BLM emc0346GB

82. PPRO respectfully requests that the federal land management agencies (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest 

Service) engaged in developing the subject EIS:

- Recognize the viability and value of the surface mining industry‟ s extensive regulatory requirements and related existing 

regulatory mechanisms which provide protections for the greater sage grouse; and,

- Preserve, actively support and incentivize the extensive voluntary research and on-the-ground efforts to conserve the 

All Both emc0122RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-697

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

greater sage grouse and its habitat that have been undertaken for more than a decade by a diverse group of energy 

companies (led by PPRO), landowners and land users across a large mixed-ownership landscape in northeastern Wyoming.

83. Stringent reclamation standards are in place for re-establishing rangeland and wildlife habitat on the postmining landscape. 

The coal mining industry has been progressive in developing reclamation techniques (Best Technology Currently Available 

- BTCA) for successful vegetation re-establishment. The increased availability of native plant materials in both kind and 

quantity has aided in this success. Sage-grouse use of reclaimed plant communities providing summer foraging and 

brood-rearing habitat has been documented at one of PPRO's mining operations.

All Both emc0122RM

84. Provide enhanced access to mineral development in areas not designated Priority Habitats. BLM's Report states that: 

"General habitat conservation areas were not thoroughly discussed or vetted through the NTT, and the concept of 

connectivity between priority sage-grouse habitat areas will need more development through the planning process". The 

planning process must, in this instance, fully recognize state developed conservation plans and the habitat needs for 

Greater

Sage-grouse as it completes the planning process. For example, Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 (EO) explicitly provides 

that incentives to enable development outside of Core Population Areas (i.e. general habitats) should be established. While 

the EO strives to maintain populations and habitat in non-core areas, it also recognizes that incentives to develop outside 

of Core Population Areas may result in reduced numbers of Greater Sage-grouse outside of Core Population Areas. 

Consistent with the EO, BLM should identify and address incentives for development outside of core population areas 

even though Greater Sage-grouse populations may be affected.

All Both emc0125RM

85. Within core areas, BLM must also adopt the provision in the EO providing that; "activities existing in Core Population 

Areas prior to August 1,2008 will not be managed under Core Population Area stipulations. Examples of existing activities 

include oil and gas, mining ... Provided these activities are within a defined project boundary (such as a recognized federal 

oil and gas unit, drilling and spacing unit, mine plan, subdivision plat, etc.) they should be allowed to continue within the 

existing boundary, even if use exceeds recommended stipulations recognizing all applicable federal actions shall continue."

All Both emc0125RM

86. A particularly troubling aspect of the agencies’ IMs is the bureaucratic regulatory maze coal and hardrock mining are 

subjected to. BLM and USFS are requiring that proposed leases be sent to three different levels of review, including the 

BLM State Director, the National Policy Team, and ultimately, the BLM Director, unless BLM determines that the 

proposed lease would “maintain or enhance greater sage grouse habitat.” This requirement is contrary to FLPMA, in that 

it automatically elevates concerns over a species that is not even listed as threatened or endangered above all other uses 

of the land, including coal or other leasable mineral production. While it may be appropriate for BLM to consider sage 

grouse protection measures in making lease determinations, this should be done on a case-by-case basis. It is contrary to 

the law for BLM to establish a policy that automatically elevates such considerations above all others in all circumstances.

Further, there is already a tool available to handle this issue where it arises. Western mineral leases – like oil, gas and a 

variety of other economic leases – routinely include stipulations designed to protect the sage grouse and its habitat. These 

are very powerful protections, and they refute the suggestion that there are inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect 

the species and its habitat.

All Both emc0378GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-698 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

The Northwest Mining Association and the National Mining Association have submitted detailed legal, operational and 

economic critiques of BLM and USFS ’approach, relative to treatment of coal and hardrock minerals. We agree with their 

assessments and ask that their comments be incorporated by reference here.

87. ODOT recognizes that this BLM / USFS plan is likely not going to be highly detailed or specific. Rather it is likely intended 

to provide broad over arching guidance that the individual Districts will utilize when they craft or modify District level 

management plans. Many of the issues of concern that ODOT has related to transportation facilities and sources of 

material located on federal land are likely to be similar in other Western States paliicipating in this planning effort. The 

following recommendations are not Oregon specific and would seemingly be appropriate for this larger planning effort.

ODOT recommends that through this higher level planning effort:

Guidance to the Districts is developed stating that in all District level planning efforts existing federal, state and local 

transportation facilities, rights-of-ways and serialized federal material sites within the planning area need to be clearly 

identified and documented in their management plans

All Both emc0155GB

88. ODOT recognizes that this BLM / USFS plan is likely not going to be highly detailed or specific. Rather it is likely intended 

to provide broad over arching guidance that the individual Districts will utilize when they craft or modify District level 

management plans. Many of the issues of concern that ODOT has related to transportation facilities and sources of 

material located on federal land are likely to be similar in other Western States paliicipating in this planning effort. The 

following recommendations are not Oregon specific and would seemingly be appropriate for this larger planning effort.

ODOT recommends that through this higher level planning effort:

Guidance is developed that the Districts can implement that provides exceptions or buffers for existing rights-of-way or 

easements to allow for the continued and unimpeded use of these lands for transportation related purposes. Highway 

related activities within existing rights-of-way should be exempted from added scrutiny based on greater sage-grouse 

habitat.

All Both emc0155GB

89. ODOT recognizes that this BLM / USFS plan is likely not going to be highly detailed or specific. Rather it is likely intended 

to provide broad over arching guidance that the individual Districts will utilize when they craft or modify District level 

management plans. Many of the issues of concern that ODOT has related to transportation facilities and sources of 

material located on federal land are likely to be similar in other Western States paliicipating in this planning effort. The 

following recommendations are not Oregon specific and would seemingly be appropriate for this larger planning effort.

ODOT recommends that through this higher level planning effort:

Guidance is developed for the Districts, out lining an expedited process for gaining necessary approvals if the identified 

projects (highway or material sources) will impact greater sage-grouse habitat outside existing highway or material site 

All Both emc0155GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-699

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

rights-of-way.

90. ODOT wants to reiterate that we support and recognizes the importance and value in environmental review of projects 

to assure that issues such as greater sage-grouse habitat is identified, evaluated and, if necessary, mitigated. But for projects 

that are necessary to maintain a safe and efficient transportation system, there needs to be processes in place to allow for 

project specific evaluation and approval without always requiring an RMP amendment via an EA or EIS. Greater 

sage-grouse and their habitats are important, but in addressing transportation improvement or maintenance projects or 

materials needed for these projects, it should not take years of effort and hundreds or thousands of dollars to obtain 

approvals to move forward. By developing the above mentioned recommendations, it should allow individual BLM Districts 

across the west to implement land management strategies for improved greater sage-grouse habitat without having to 

struggle to address Federal, State and Local Transportation projects and needed material sources.

All Both emc0155GB

91. I am greatly concerned that the proposed use of mandatory mineral withdrawals would result in the unconstitutional 

taking of existing mineral interests on federal lands. Mineral interest on federal lands is not a license that may be revoked 

at the government's pleasure, rather a vested property right. To wit, 30 U.S.c. 26 states that "The locators of all mining 

locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns ... shall have the 

exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations." Further, the U.S. 

Supreme Court has affirmed a claim as "an exclusive right ofpossession ... with the right to extract the minerals, even to 

exhaustion, without paying any royalty to the United States as owner, and without ever applying for a patent or seeking to 

obtain title to the fee. Union Oil Co. a/California v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337, 348 (1919).

All Both emc0347GB

92. Mineral development.

Issue: Mineral extraction and associated infrastructure, including gas, oil, and coal, eliminate, fragment and degrade habitat 

and have significant negative effects on sage-grouse.

All Both emc0391GB

93. Fluid Mineral Development. The NTT report and Knick and Connelly (2011a) thoroughly review the effects of fluid mineral 

development on sage-grouse. In addition, there is some new information for federal planners to consider in sage-grouse 

conservation plans. A new study commissioned by the Bureau of Land Management has exposed major difficulties with the 

agency's current approach to sage-grouse conservation in the Powder River Basin, a region that is heavily developed for gas 

and oil. The study indicates that an increasing density of coalbed methane wells and conventional oil and gas wells coupled 

with an outbreak of West Nile virus could cause "functional extinction" of sage-grouse in the Powder River Basin. Under 

such

a scenario, modeling predicts that 370 active leks known today in the Basin would be reduced to only six (Taylor et al. 

2012). The authors estimate that 27 percent of the pre-development sagegrouse population has already been lost as a 

result of heavy coalbed methane and conventional drilling in the Powder River Basin, and predicts that only 39 percent of 

the original population will remain when coalbed methane is fully developed (with up to eight wells per section) in the

Basin, even in the absence of a West Nile virus outbreak (Taylor et al. 2012). The study also found that sage-grouse 

censused at large leks would be expected to decline by 70 percent from pre-development numbers as well spacing reaches 

4 wells per square mile. Finally, effects of drilling on sage-grouse were noticeable out to 12.4 miles from leks, indicating that 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-700 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

current core areas may not be large enough to conserve and recover the species (Taylor et al. 2012).

94. Coal Mining. Coal mining and related infrastructure destroys and fragments sage-grouse habitat. FWS recognized the 

deleterious impacts of surface coal mining on sage-grouse—particularly in potential priority habitat—in recent comments 

Alton Coal Tract Lease by Application Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Bureau of Land Management has 

proposed to extend Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative surface coal mining from a private land tract onto thousands of 

acres of critical sage grouse breeding, nesting and brood-rearing habitat on public land outside the town of Alton, Utah 

(BLM

2011a). FWS recommended that BLM reject the lease application and withdraw the tract for sale, stating “[w]e believe that 

mining activity under any of the action alternatives will result in the extirpation of the Alton-Sink Valley greater sage-grouse 

lek and the Alton greater sage-grouse population” (USFWS 2012: 1).

All Both emc0391GB

95. 2.5. Mining

The US Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service together manage about 87,500

square miles of sage-grouse habitat. Improving that habitat is a key focus of the agencies’ plansto assure the survivability of 

the bird. Current and proposed regulatory mechanisms include

significant restrictions on mining and other development across the region.

These concerns beg the question never quantitatively addressed by the agencies: what is the

impact of these developments on the sage grouse habitat? A historic number which comes to

mind is 8,844 sq. mi. That is the 1930-1980 cumulative nationwide mined land disturbance

reported in the final land use circular issued by the now-closed Bureau of Mines (Johnson &

Paone, 1981). In fifty years of mining, and mining and beneficiation waste storage, the total

amount of land used was slightly more than half the area of Elko County, NV (17,181 sq. mi.),

the nation’s seventh-largest county.

The principal commodities covered in the earlier years were coal, sand & gravel, stone,

phosphate, clay, copper and iron ore. In descending order, the states with the most affected land

were: PA, KY, OH, IL, WV, FL, IN, CA, AL, MO. 47% of that disturbed land was reclaimed at

the end of the reporting period. Subsequent laws and regulations assure concurrent reclamation

with all mining.

The fifty year period covers the introduction of walking draglines in coal and phosphate, coal

and clay mining across the south, the open pit copper giants of AZ, NM, UT, NV, MT and the

great iron pits of the Mesabi Range in MN. It includes all the aggregate pits which built Hoover,

Garrison, Grand Coulee and the Tennessee Valley Authority dams. It includes virtually the

entire uranium industry, and most of the quarries of the Interstate highway system.

For more recent numbers, quarries and mines in the lower 48 now cover 2,584 square miles

(USGS, 2010). The Form itself mentions approximately 294 mi2 of current or planned mining

activity within the sage grouse habitat. Though the Form data presentation on mining

disturbance is incomplete, the area comparisons show the essential insignificance of restricting

All Both emc0274GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-701

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

mining in order to save the sage grouse. Habitat management simply fulfills the bureaucratic

prime directive, which is growth of the bureaucracy, not growth of the sage grouse population.

Figure 1 shows the sage grouse range with a comparative image of the 8,844 sq. mi. fifty-year

cumulative mine disturbance.

96. On page 14, Proposed Land Withdrawals section, the first conservation measure bullet proposes that "lands within 

priority sage-grouse habitat areas for mineral withdrawal." The socio-economic impacts of this conservation measure need 

to be evaluated in this EIS.

All Both emc0239GB

97. COMMENTS ON Interim conservation Measures and Policies for Preliminary Priority Habitat, No.

2012 ‐043 (IM)

As the interim policy and program guidance in the IM: These comments are consistent with and

applicable to the strategic suggestions above for the proposed action.

Leasable Minerals

The IM gives Field Offices the discretion to not move forward with a nomination or to defer making a

decision on Fluid Mineral leasing until the completion of the LUP process for the affected area. We

believe that giving the field offices this discretion will result in the postponement of geothermal leasing until after the 

National Greater Sage ‐PGH or PPH is Grouse Planning St 

contained in the nominated parcels. This outcome has the potential to stall geothermal energy development for up to 

three years.

All Both emc0254GB

98. COMMENTS ON "A Report on National Greater Sage ‐the Grouse Conser 

Sage ‐Grouse National Technical :Team (NTT)

Fluid Minerals

The NTT Report uses studies that were based on oil and gas development and applies the findings to geothermal 

development as well. While research on oil and gas projects is relevant to understanding how geothermal development 

may impact sage grouse, key differences in development density, size, and operation mean that the impacts documented 

thus far may not be applicable to geothermal. Despite the incongruity of the available data to the typical geothermal 

development, the NTT report recommends the closure of PPH to fluid mineral leasing with only limited exceptions for 

checkerboard or split estate parcels. Without access to the PPH and PGH maps, the geothermal industry can only 

speculate that the team’s recommendations would spell the end of any future lease acquisition in a broad swath of 

northern Nevada and southern Idaho. The NTT report further recommends prohibition of new surface occupancy on 

existing fluid mineral leases in PPH with unreasonable exceptions of 4 

permitted disturbance per section (640 acres) of land. We feel that these restrictions would deprive leaseholders of the 

potential benefits of continuing development without compensating them for the value invested obtaining or exploring the 

leases. Furthermore, the no new surface occupancy (NSO) conservation measure, with the exceptions noted, render all of 

the other proposed conservation measures moot; these activities would not be allowed in an NSO condition. For example, 

All Both emc0254GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-702 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

applying seasonal restrictions to exploratory drilling does not mean that the NSO is waived in outside of the seasonal 

restriction period if the underlying NSO is still in effect.

99. Mining for leasable and non-leasable minerals may pose a substantial threat to sage-grouse and

their habitat. Mining which may pose a threat includes, but is not necessarily limited to, coal

mining in MT, WY, UT, and CO, uranium mining in WY, UT, CO, and NV, phosphate mining

in Idaho, bentonite mining in the Bighorn Basin in WY, and hard rock mining in NV.

All Both emc0276GB

100. Potential effects from mining include direct habitat conversion, modification, and fragmentation,

water contamination from mining activities, including leaching of waste rock and overburden

and nutrients from blasting chemicals and fertilizer, invasion of exotic and noxious weed species

from mining vehicles and equipment, and indirect effects associated with an increase in human

presence, including avoidance, disturbance, stress, an increase in vulnerability to predators, and

direct mortality from vehicle collisions or other threats. Mining may also interfere with auditory

clues important to mate selection, resulting in lower lek attendance of males and an overall

decrease of breeding success. Mining is also generally associated with changes to surface

hydrology that may affect sage-grouse, especially in terms of wastewater disposal.

All Both emc0276GB

101. As has been noted in regard to several other impacts on sage-grouse, sage-grouse habitat

reestablishment and recovery of population numbers in an area after mining disturbances have

ceased is uncertain.

All Both emc0276GB

102. In particular, Barrick is concerned that some of the policiesincluding locatable minerals withdrawals and disturbance 

prohibitions in priority habitat-could result in unnecessary lost jobs, wages and tax revenues in Nevada, a state that is 

already under severe economic distress.

All Both emc0277GB, 

emc0112rm

103. In our experience, well-designed reclamation of public lands impacted by mining can ultimately lead to higher value habitat 

than if the same lands were left unmanaged. We believe that this principle applies to sage-grouse habitat as well. For 

example, it is generally accepted that noxious invasive species like Bromus tectorum (cheat grass) have significantly 

degraded vast areas of former sage-grouse habitat. Conversely, pinyonjuniper succession can lead to conversion of prime 

sage-grouse habitat into comparatively low-value woodlands. During mine reclamation, Barrick routinely restores such 

low-value habitats into prime potential sage-grouse habitat. Thus, when coupled with appropriate reclamation 

requirements, mining activi ty on public lands can play an important role in restoring sage-grouse and other species to 

long-term viability.

All Both emc0277GB

104. So long as Barrick can continue to develop the resources it discovers, we intend to operate and support sage-grouse 

conservation in northern Nevada and the western United States for decades to come. To do so, however, Barrick must 

continue to have access to public lands. Sage-grouse protection must not be pursued in a manner that unduly burdens 

development of valuable mineral resources.

All Both emc0277GB

105. Thus, affected entities should be provided opportunities to confirm assumptions regarding the value of particular habitat 

areas. And in areas of confirmed priority habitat, BLM should not simply disallow

development. Instead, the agencies should develop, with the regulated community, strong but flexible conservation 

All Both emc0277GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-703

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

measures that include opportunities for pragmatic mitigation.

106. Barrick has conducted assessments of the ranches adjacent to some of its mining operations that may be useful to the 

agencies, particularly if the agencies are interested in evaluating the potential for mitigation projects or "banks" in these 

areas. These same type of assessments are being included in the baseline studies conducted on potential mine development 

sites. This information may be available for the NEPA analysis and may allow for determination of impacts and mitigation 

for the impacts. The existing information for the ranches provides guidance and opportunity for where off-site mitigation 

can be conducted within the vicinity of the impacts.

All Both emc0277GB

107. The management plan revisions must comply with multiple use and sustained yield requirements

BLM must also recognize "the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public 

lands." Id. § 1701(a)(12). And BLM must manage the public lands for a "sustained yield," requiring "the achievement and 

maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public 

lands consistent with multiple use." [d. § 1702(h). Mineral extraction, grazing, and other productive uses must be 

considered on equal footing with sage-grouse management, and not merely as an afterthought. 

The National Forest Management Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act require the Forest Service to similarly 

manage for mUltiple uses and sustained yield. Forest Service management plans must provide for "multiple use and 

sustained yield of the products and services obtained therefrom in accordance with the [Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act], 

and, in particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish and wilderness." 

16 U.S.C. § 1604(e). The Forest Service must recognize "the policy of the Congress that the national forests are established 

and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes." Id. § 528. 

Accordingly, both the Forest Service and BLM must recognize multiple uses during the revision process.

All Both emc0277GB

108. ii. Range of alternatives should not be more restrictive than an Endangered Species Act ("ESA") Listing

The agencies' objective in launching the RMP revision process is to "conserve sage-grouse and its habitat and potentially 

avoid an ESA listing. ,,21 While the prospect of a sage-grouse listing and its regulatory consequences may be daunting, the 

restrictive measures recommended by the National Technical Team may be even more so. Indeed, the ESA permits the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to at least consider each proposed action individually, taking into consideration the site-specific 

circumstances, species and habitat conditions, potential effects to the species, and potential mitigating actions. While "take" 

of listed species is prohibited under the ESA, there are opportunities for take permits. By contrast, some National 

Technical Team recommendations would put millions of acres of public lands off limits from mineral entry or arbitrarily cap 

disturbance regardless of sitespecific species occurrence and habitat conditions, or mitigation opportunities that might be 

offered by the project proponent. In deciding what conservation measures should be imposed to avoid a listing, the 

agencies must consider whether the measures proposed may cost more than the ESA listing it is attempting to avoid.

The irony of the agencies' purpose to avoid a listing and the BLM National Technical Team's recommended conservation 

All Both emc0277GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-704 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

measures is highlighted by the Technical Team's proposal to withdraw from mineral entry priority sage-grouse habitat 

areas.22 The Technical Team also recommends a 3% surface disturbance cap in priority habitat.23 Such blanket 

prohibitions that admit no exceptions based on habitat conditions and quality, species occurrence, or mitigation that might 

be offered by the project applicant are at once inflexible and draconian, evidencing a singularity of purpose that directly 

contradicts the agencies' multiple-use mandates.

By contrast, an ESA listing does not automatically put off limits all projects that might adversely affect the species or its 

critical habitat within its range. In fact, the ESA specifically provides processes to obtain "take" authorization for both 

private projects and those with a federal nexus. For private projects that might result in "take"-defined broadly to include 

any activity that would or would attempt to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a 

species, 50 C.F.R. § 17.3-an applicant can obtain an Incidental Take Permit under ESA Section 10 after preparing an 

approved Habitat Conservation Plan. 16 U.S.c. § 1539(a)(l)(B); 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(l)(iii). A Habitat Conservation Plan 

specifies the actions that will be taken by the project applicant to minimize and mitigate effects to the listed species. 

Measures can be as varied as

avoiding Impacts by relocating project facilities, minimizing impacts through timing restrictions and buffer zones, rectifying 

impacts by restoration and re-vegetation, and compensating for impacts by habitat restoration or protection at an offsite 

location.24 The Fish and Wildlife Service can issue an incidental take permit if after considering the effects and committed 

mitigation measures, the taking will not appreciably reduce the likely survival or recovery ofthe species as a whole. 50 

CF.R. § 17.22(b)(2).

Similarly, when an agency such as BLM permits an activity that is likely to adversely affect a listed species, it must initiate 

Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that the proposed action will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. 50 C.F.R. § 402. 14(a). The Service issues a Biological Opinion to determine whether 

jeopardy will occur. /d. § 402.14(g). The Service may take into consideration any conservation measures or other 

agreements between the action agency and the project proponent, including commitments to mitigate and minimize 

impacts. See Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 956 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, in both the Section 10 and 

Section 7 context, there is no absolute prohibition on activities that might "take" species. Rather, project approval is based 

on whether, after applying the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant, the action will appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival or recovery of the species, or result in jeopardy, respectively. The ESA permitting processes 

encourage cooperation between the Service and the applicant to find solutions that both allow the applicant's project to 

move forward while conserving the species.

The mineral industry is familiar with ESA processes and has worked successfully with the Fish and Wildlife Service over 

several decades to ensure mining operations do not place listed species such as the Lahontan cutthroat trout in jeopardy. 

Whatever conservation measures the agencies ultimately implement in its various RMPs, they should encourage similar 

collaboration for species conservation and avoid industrystifling blanket prohibitions that fail to take into consideration 
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-705

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

individual project proposals and site-specific circumstances. Barrick encourages the agencies to consider, and incorporate 

in their management plan revisions, alternatives that provide flexibility to the agencies to work with industry toward 

effective conservation while permitting multiple uses of the public lands.

109. iii. Alternatives should be technically and economically feasible

The range of alternatives must be technically or economically feasible. NEPA requires the agencies to "study, develop, and 

describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.c. § 4332(2)(E). The agencies should emphasize what is 

"reasonable" and include only alternatives that are "practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint." BLM 

NEPA Handbook at 50; see also N. Alaska Envtl. Ctr. v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2006) (agency need not 

discuss alternatives "which are infeasible, ineffective, or inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of 

the area"); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a). In determining what is "technically or economically" feasible, the agencies should 

consider whether implementation is likely given past and current practice. BLM NEP A Handbook at 52.

As an initial matter, the agencies cannot implement an alternative that manages solely for sage-grouse conservation, as it 

would violate FLPMA, NMFA, and MUSYA statutory mandates to manage the public lands for multiple uses. Further, as a 

practical matter, rigid surface occupancy restrictions possibly would not be technically or economically feasible. The 

Technical Team's 3% priority habitat disturbance measure does not address habitat recovery timelines. Restoration of 

degraded habitats below the threshold could take several years to a decade or more. This would be an unacceptable delay 

to new mining projects and expansions at existing mines. Even with the extremely long permitting times to get a plan of 

operations deemed complete, baseline data collection, and NEPA analysis, which is a 4 to 6 year process, there could be a 

delay if the restoration is not approved as sufficient or successful. These types of unknown delays in permitting are not 

technically or economically feasible for large-scale mining operations.

All Both emc0277GB

110. v. Existing rights

The scoping notice acknowledges that the revisions must recognize valid existing rights. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 77011. 

However, the National Technical Team's recommended conservation measures could eliminate or restrict existing 

mineral claims. The National Technical Team recommends the withdrawal from mineral entry of priority sage-grouse 

areas from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development. 26 The National Technical Team suggests possibly 

"buying out" these claims. The agencies should clarify how the revisions would affect existing mining claims, including those

claims that are already operating under approved plans of operations. For example, how will additional conservation 

measures affect mine expansions that have already been approved? How will the revisions affect perfected mining claims 

that are not yet

approved for operation?

All Both emc0277GB

111. I am very strongly opposed to the proposed withdrawal of Sage Grouse habitat which, if

adopted as proposed, will bar mineral exploration of all types from areas known to have very

All Both emc0282GB 

emc0115rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-706 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

high mineral potential, including oil & gas, geothermal, precious metals and industrial

minerals.

112. Mining and mineral exploration operations take far less operating space than roads, power lines and

other uses perceived to have public benefit; yet, this proposed huge area withdrawal is obviously

targeted at mineral exploration and development. BLM exploration permits and plans of operation

already require a direct review of the disturbance area before approval. Measures are already in

place to protect Sage Grouse and any other threatened or endangered species found in a proposed operating area.

Following operations, work areas are reclaimed and re-seeded with local native grasses and brush, replacing any native 

habitat disturbed. To me, this proposed withdrawal by the BLM begs the question “WHY” this new initiative.

All Both emc0282GB 

emc0115rm

113. I am personally convinced that the proposed Sage Grouse protective measures are the direct result

of the BLM’s fear of – and pressure from - environmental protective (anti-mining) groups. In short,

the BLM is appeasing those groups and ignoring the rights of mineral explorationists and other

users of public lands under a questionable and scientifically unsupported guise.

All Both emc0282GB 

emc0115rm

114. Rather than withdrawing the land to where there is no income coming into your agency by fees for

exploration acres, both in the mining sector as well as the oil, gas & geothermal sectors, would it not have been more 

beneficial for you to allow the sale of the deferred leases and allowed the operators to aid in mitigating this problem in 

regard to the Sage Grouse? It seems to me the mining companies have done an excellent job in restoration projects 

throughout this State.

All Both emc0320GB

115. On page 14, Proposed Land Withdrawals section, the first conservation measure bullet proposes that "lands within

priority sage-grouse habitat areas for mineral withdrawal." The socio-economic impacts of this conservation measure need 

to be evaluated in the EIS.

All Both emc0322GB

116. On page 19, Minerals section, second paragraph, there is mention of abandonment of leks by male sage-grouse if leks are 

repeatedly disturbed by raptors perching on power lines near leks. The mitigation measure or conservation measure 

should include anti-perching devices on these structures and not prevent mining or energy development. Similarly, 

predator control of ravens, crows, and magpies (corvids) is possible in identified nesting areas where power lines provide 

perches for corvids to watch for sage-grouse hens to leave the nest.

All Both emc0322GB

117. The socio-economic impacts of the minerals-related conservation measures need to be analyzed in the EIS. The restrictive 

nature of the conservation measures does not allow for mitigation to offset impacts created by mineral exploration and 

development. I believe that the best way to provide for protection of the sage-grouse, while simultaneously allowing 

continued economic development, is for BLM to develop conservation measures in cooperation with the regulated 

community that include a strong but pragmatic mitigation program.

All BLM emc0322GB

118. NEI believes that there is empirical evidence demonstrating that mining activities are not a primary threat to sage grouse 

viability, and that sufficient sage grouse habitat can be effectively preserved with uranium mining activities proceeding 

concurrently on these public lands.

All Both emc0306GB

119. Greater sage grouse habitat extends over the Western states of California, Colorado, Idaho, All BLM emc0306GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-707

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. With about 47 million acres 

of potential sage grouse habitat involved, BLM’s conservation efforts could have a substantial impact on uranium mining 

activity on public lands. NEI believes that there is the potential that BLM’s EIS on incorporation of conservation measures 

into land use plans and land management plans to protect the greater sage grouse will require withdrawal of lands from 

mining activities with no validity examination allowed for ongoing or future mining claims.

NEI believes that there is empirical evidence demonstrating that mining activities are not a primary threat to sage grouse 

viability, and that sufficient sage grouse habitat can be effectively preserved with uranium mining activities proceeding 

concurrently on these public lands.

120. All alternatives must acknowledge that RMP’s and LMP’s cannot legally effect a mineral withdrawal. Only Congress or the 

Secretary of Interior pursuant to FLPMA §204 may withdraw lands from mineral entry.

The BLM and the USFS have numerous tools in their respective “tool boxes” to protect the environment, prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation, minimize or mitigate adverse environmental impacts, address cultural resource and 

threatened and endangered species issues and ensure compliance with all applicable Federal and state environmental laws 

and regulations. While a mineral withdrawal is one of those tools, it is, or at least should be, the tool of last resort. A 

mineral withdrawal is an extreme action and should be considered and used only when all other tools have failed (emphasis 

added). In light of the numerous sage-grouse conservation measures currently in place in the western states, we submit a 

mineral withdrawal is wholly unnecessary.

All Both emc0321GB

121. Furthermore, mineral exploration and mining can only occur in the specific areas where minerals of interest occur or are 

likely to occur. In a 1999 report, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences recognized just how 

rare economically viable mineral deposits are:

Only a very small portion of Earth’s continental crust (less than 0.01%) contains economically viable mineral deposits. Thus, 

mines can only be located in those few places where economically viable deposits were formed and discovered.

Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1999, p. 2-3.

All Both emc0321GB

122. If the United States is going to compete in this global mineral environment fueled by resource nationalism, it must adopt 

policies that guarantee access to lands with mineral deposits, must provide a competitive tax regime, and must reduce 

permitting delays. We should be embarrassed that we rank last among the twenty-five largest mineral producing countries 

in terms of permitting delays. The fact that a country with a mineral resource base as rich as the United States attracts only 

8% of world-wide exploration spending should be a call to action. Unfortunately, the sagegrouse conservation measures being proposed only worsen the problem.

Therefore, absolute prohibitions on mineral exploration and mining must be avoided and the agencies should evaluate 

exempting locatable mineral activities from any proposed land use restrictions. At a minimum, measures allowing onsite 

All Both emc0321GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-708 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

and/or offsite mitigation to offset documented impacts to sage-grouse should be allowed and be an alternative for each 

proposed use of public and National Forest System lands.

123. The proposed land use restrictions and proposed withdrawal of lands from mineral entry for areas with high-priority 

sage-grouse habitat will substantially hann NVMRA members that have exploration projects in these areas. However, 

beyond the immediate impact the proposed land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals will have on NVMRA 

member companies, we are concerned that a significant reduction in the amount of land open to operation of the U.S. 

Mining Law will hurt Nevada's economy - especially in rural Nevada. Such a withdrawal will also hann the nation at large 

because it will increase the country's reliance on foreign sources of minerals that support the U.S. economy, are needed to 

build our infrastructure, and are critical to our national defense.

All Both emc0327GB

124. The greater sage grouse occupies a massive 11 state area including areas of Calif., Ore., Mont., N.D., S.D., Wyo., Colo., 

Utah, Idaho, Nev. and Wash. states. With approximately 47 million acres of sage grouse habitat at issue, BLM's 

conservation efforts could have a significant impact on the development of minerals on public lands. For example, the 

habitat for the sage grouse coincides with some of the most significant mineral deposits in the West, including gold 

reserves in Nevada and the largest coal producing area in the U.S., the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.

All Both emc0331GB

125. o Discretion to Delay Approvals

The IM provides that field offices retain the discretion to reject, deny or defer approvals for proposed activities, such as 

mineral leasing or rights of ways, in preliminary priority habitat areas. BlM offices are already deferring major projects 

based on the IM provisions.1 NMA believes it is procedurally incorrect to delay projects for two years while RMPs are 

revised to reflect new conservation measures for sage grouse. Sage grouse need to be addressed through the National 

Environmental Policy Act process for proposed projects and conservation measures incorporated into issued permits.

All BLM emc0331GB

126. o Additional Layers of Review

A particularly troublesome provision of the IM is the imposition of several new layers of review prior to approval of 

proposed activities such as coal or other solid mineral leasing. The 1M states that a proposed lease must be sent to three 

different levels of review, including the BlM State Director, the National Policy Team, and ultimately, the BlM Director 

unless BlM determines that the proposed lease would "maintain or enhance greater sage grouse habitat." This requirement 

is contrary to FlPMA in that it automatically elevates concerns over a species that is not even listed as threatened or 

endangered above all other uses of the land, including coal or other leasable mineral production. While it may be 

appropriate for BlM to consider sage grouse protection measures in making lease determinations, this should be done on 

a case-by-case basis. It is contrary to the law for BlM to establish a policy that automatically elevates such considerations 

above all others in all circumstances.

In fact, coal mine leases on BlM lands already contain stipulations designed to protect the sage grouse and its habitat. FWS 

has stated that waivers and modifications of leasing stipulations are "rare.,,2 From the mining industry's perspective, we find 

that the federal regulatory mechanisms that are currently in place are not only adequate to address the threats to the 

All BLM emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-709

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

species, but are extremely robust. For example, in order to receive a federal coal lease, every lessee is required to sign a 

stipulation from the BlM that states:

"Special Stipulation 2. Threatened and Endangered Species (Wyoming BlM) The lease area may now or hereafter contain 

plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., or that have other special status. The Authorized Officer may recommend 

modifications to exploration and development proposals to further conservation and management objectives or to avoid 

activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat or to comply with any biological opinion issued by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service for the proposed action. The Authorized Officer will not approve any grounddisturbing 

activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its obligations under applicable requirements 

of the Endangered Species Act. The Authorized Officer may require modifications to, or disapprove a proposed activity 

that is likely to result in jeopardy to the continuous existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species, 

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat.

The lessee shall comply with instructions from the Authorized Officer of the surface managing agency (BLM, if the surface 

is private) for ground disturbing activities associated with coal exploration on federal coal leases prior to approval of a 

mining and reclamation permit or outside an approved mining and reclamation permit area. The lessee shall comply with 

instructions from the Authorized Officer of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, or his designated 

representative, for all ground-disturbing activities taking place within an approved mining and reclamation permit area or 

associated with such a permit.

Since the sage grouse is a special status species, this stipulation authorizes BLM to modify the lease to avoid activity that will 

harm the sage grouse, and prohibits the agency from approving any activity that would adversely affect such species if it 

would violate the Endangered Species Act. It even authorizes BlM to modify the lease after mining has begun, if necessary. 

These are very powerful protections, and they refute the suggestion that there are inadequate regulatory mechanisms to 

protect the sage grouse and its habitat. There are similar protections required for other industries as well, such as oil and 

gas leasing on BlM land.3 ("Protective wildlife stipulations are typically placed on individual oil and gas leases at the time of 

sale, including seasonal and temporal restrictions around important sage-grouse habitats ... "). Accordingly, the extra layers 

of review for leasable minerals as outlined in the IM are completely unnecessary.

127. o Mining in Priority Sage Grouse Habitat Areas

As mentioned above, hard rock mining is not a primary threat to sage grouse. As such, the NTT recommendations that 

would severely limit new mining activities in primary sage grouse habitat are completely inappropriate. Not only does the 

NTT recommend prohibiting new coal or other solid mineral leases in priority sage grouse habitat areas, the NTT 

proclaims that BLM should propose lands within priority sage grouse habitat for mineral withdrawal. Given the lack of 

adequate maps, it is difficult to estimate how much acreage could potentially be proposed for withdrawal but presumably 

All BLM emc0331GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-710 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

a significant portion of the 47 million acres at issue could be involved.

The Report provides no scientific basis to support any such broad-scale mineral withdrawal. Moreover, any proposal 

requiring systematic condemnation of all mining claims within priority sage-grouse habitat would be contrary to Congress' 

repeated recognition, as discussed above, that the public lands should generally remain open to mineral entry and 

development of this nation's minerals base.

Before BLM adopts such draconian land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals, it must perform a thorough 

analysis of the regulatory tools and policies it already has to protect special status species. This evaluation should document 

the effectiveness of the existing policies described in Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management, which was last 

updated in December 2008. BLM should also perform a gap analysis to determine if any of the policies outlined in Manual 

6840 are insufficient to provide the desired level of protection and what adjustments would be necessary to fill any 

identified gaps. Furthermore, there should be an explicit acknowledgement that RMPs and LMPs cannot legally effect a 

mineral withdrawal and that only Congress or the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to FLPMA §204 may withdraw lands 

from mineral

entry.

The recommendations that would prevent future mineral activities in priority sage grouse habitat completely ignore that 

mineral exploration and mining can only occur in the specific areas where minerals of interest occur or are likely to occur. 

In a 1999 report, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences recognized just how rare 

economically viable mineral deposits are:

Only a very small portion of Earth's continental crust (less than 0.01%) contains economically viable mineral deposits. Thus,

mines can only be located in those few places where economically viable deposits were formed and discovered.

Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands, National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1999, p. 2-3. Whole scale 

prohibitions on mining on millions of mineral rich in the Western United States is simply poor public policy as there are 

processes in place to protect the sage grouse from mining impacts.

128. Eureka Moly Scoping Issue No.1: Demonstrate Compliance with FLPMA -

Each ElS document should discuss how the conservation measures in the

Proposed Action, each Alternative Considered in Detail, and the Agency

Preferred Alternative comply with the FLPMA mandate to balance a wide range

of resource values and uses of public lands and the directive in the Mining and

Minerals Policy Act at 43 U.S.c. 1701(a)(12) to recognize the Nation 's need for

domestic sources of minerals.

All Both emc0335GB

129. VIII. The EIS Must Evaluate Ways to Minimize Interfering with Expectation-Backed All Both emc0335GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-711

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Investments

Many mineral companies have made substantial investments in developing their patented claims,

unpatented claims, fee lands, and associated ROW grant applications for existing and proposed

exploration and mining projects throughout the west. These investments have been made in

substantial reliance upon the multiple use principles mandated in FLPMA, and on the land uses

authorized in current LUPslRMPs and Forest Management Plans.

The land use restrictions, prohibitions, and recommended in the NTT Report could substantially

interfere with these investments. In light of the potential for this interference, the EIS documents

must:

J) Quantify how these measures could interfere with expectation-backed investments;

2) Evaluate ways to minimize interference with the investment-backed expectations of

project proponents; and

3) Discuss and quantify the potential impact to U.S. taxpayers as a result of the regulatory

takings claims that could arise in response to implementing the land use restrictions and

withdrawals recommended in the NTT Report at projects where these measures interfere

with substantial investments.

• Eureka Moly Scoping Issue No.8: Minimize Interference with ExpectationBacked

Investments - The EIS documents must evaluate alternatives that minimize

interference with expectation-backed investments and disclose and quantify any

interference with expectation-backed investments that would result from

implementation of the Agency Preferred Alternative.

130. Mineral Development

There is no basis to withdraw public lands solely on the basis of potential impacts on

sage grouse habitat. As shown, there is no reliable data supporting the premise that

sage grouse numbers are declining. Indeed, numbers appear to be stable or

increasing. Id. For example, sage grouse numbers declined in Idaho, even though

there is no oil and gas development.

All BLM emc0371GB

131. Access to fluid and hard rock minerals on BLM and Forest land must be maintained and valid lease rights must be 

acknowledged and protected.

All Both emc0376GB

132. The Sage-Grouse NOI and Technical Report impermissibly prioritize sage-grouse habitat over all

other uses of BLM lands by recommending a complete ban on mineral development as opposed to

conSidering reasonable measures to conserve the sage-grouse habitat. The Sage-Grouse NOI states:

• "[tJhe BLM and FS will consider allocative and/or prescriptive standards to conserve

greater sage-grouse habitat, as well as objectives and management actions to restore,

enhance, and improve greater sage-grouse habitat." 76 Fed. Reg. at 77011;

• "[tJhe FWS has identified conservation measures to be included in the respective

All BLM rmc0021RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-712 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

agencie s' land use plans as the principal regulatory mechanisms to assure adequate

conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on public lands." 1!L at 77009;

• "[tJhe BLM and FS will consider a range of rea sonable alternatives, including appropriate

management prescriptions that focus on the relative va lues of resources while

contributing to the conservation of the greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat."

1!L at 77011.

Each of those statements suggests that as part of the revised RMPs, BLM will be evaluating specific

measures, conditions, or standards that would be implemented in an effort to conserve the sage-grouse

habitat. In contrast, with respect to mineral development, the Technical Report states that "we believe

the conservation strategy most likely to meet the objective of maintaining or increasing sage-grouse

distribution and abundance is to exclude energy development and other large scale disturbances from

priority habitats." NTI at 21. The Technical Report further recommends not allowing new surface

occupancy on federal leases within priority habitats, and closing priority sage-grouse habitat areas to

fluid mineral leasing. NTI at 22-23.

133. Oxy respectfully disagrees that preclusion of mineral development is a conservation measure.

Rather, it is a de facto moratorium on currently lawful and authorized activity, and thus, a decision by

BLM to arbitrarily prioritize conservation of sage-grouse habitat over other appropriate land uses. Cf.

Union Oil Co. v. Morton, 512 F.2d 743, 751-52 (9th Cir. 1975) (holding, in the context of leasing under

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, that an indefinite suspension was subject to an injunction as an

illegal cancellation; i.e., because the moratorium in question would have left Union Oil with a worthless

drilling lease, the moratorium amounted to a taking). Oxy questions the appropriateness of any such

moratorium, particularly because not even a listing of the greater sage-grouse as threatened or

endangered under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") would necessarily result in such a drastic, allencompassing

curtailment of mineral development. If BLM in fact intends to preclude mineral

development to protect sage-grouse habitat, the Sage-Grouse NOI does not fully reflect that intent and

should be amended - reinitiating the scoping process and allowing the public to comment on BLM's

newly articulated intent. If this is not in fact BLM's intent, then BLM's reliance on the Tech nical Reportas

articulated above - should be reconsidered and BLM must invest in and utilize the NEPA process as

the mechanism by which BLM evaluates potential conservation of sage-grouse habitat. It is through

NEPA that BLM must provide full consideration of the impacts of such drastic conservation measures on

valid existing rights, future mineral development, and BLM's mUltiple-use mandate, among others

All Both rmc0021RM

134. Any EIS must fairly consider both present and future costs and benefits of

continued multiple use activities, including mining, The analysis must include the

affect of each alternative, including the No Action alternative, as to its effects on

future investment expectations under various scenarios.

All Both rmc0024RM

135. Land Use and Management plans must exclude GSG based restrictions on All Both rmc0024RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-713

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

locatable minerals under the Mining Law of 1872 and should exclude leaseable

mineral prospects as well, so as to encourage mineral development in the region.

136. Specifically, VGC is concerned about the large-scale land use restrictions and prohibitions -

including the withdrawal of lands with high-priority sage grouse habitat from mineral entry -

that is proposed in Instruction Memorandum ("IM") IM-2012-044, "BLM National Greater

Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy" and in the December 2011 National Technical Team

Report entitled, A Report on National Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures ("the NTT Report").

If implemented as currently proposed, these draconian conservation measures will thwart mineral

exploration and development and other private-sector uses of public land under the guise of sagegrouse

habitat conservation.

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

137. VGC knows from working with BLM to secure authorization for our mineral activities on ELMadministered lands, that 

BLM already has rules and policies to ensure that mineral projects

protect sage-grouse habitat. The U.S. Forest Service ("USFS") has similar policies to protect

sage-grouse habitat on National Forest System lands. BLM Notices and BLM and USFS Plans of

Operations for mineral projects contain numerous permit conditions and stipulations to protect

sage-grouse habitat. Examples of these measures include seasonal restrictions on when and

where activities can occur, buffer zones around identified sage-grouse leks, limiting constructionof new overhead 

structures that provide raptors perching sites, and installing anti-perching

devices on existing transmission lines.Given the existing regulatory framework under which VGC and other mineral 

exploration and development companies must operate, we question the need for a completely new policy direction, like 

that proposed in the NTT Report. Before BLM and USFS "go back to the drawing board" and create new regulatory 

programs to protect sage-grouse habitat, they should first perform a gap analysis of the existing policies to determine what 

- if anything - needs to be improved or modified.

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

138. BLM and USFS made a new sage-grouse habitat map for Nevada available to the public on

March 9, 2012 - just 14 days before the March 23, 2012 deadline for submitting these

comments. The map entitled "Nevada BLM and USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Preliminary Habitat

Map" shows extensive areas in magenta that are labeled "Preliminary Priority Habitat" and other

areas in blue-green labeled "Preliminary General Habitat." This map is based on a map that the

Nevada Department of Wildlife ("NDOW") prepared and recently released entitled, "Nevada

Department of Wildlife Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Categorization Map."

VGC and other stakeholders need more time to evaluate this map. However, one thing is already

readily apparent from this map - there is widespread sage-grouse habitat throughout much of

northern Nevada where many of Nevada's most important mines are located. Additionally,

many of the Preliminary Priority Habitat areas shown on the BLM-USFS map are coincident

with Nevada's most productive mineralized belts. As discussed in the next section, BLM must

manage lands with sage-grouse habitat and mineral potential in a way to resolve any land use

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-714 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

conflicts and to achieve the best balance between protecting sage-grouse habitat and authorizing

the responsible exploration and development of the mineral resources on these lands.

139. The current recommendations in the NTT Report - especially the proposal to withdraw lands

with priority sage-grouse habitat from mineral entry - create a resource conflict that needs to be

resolved in a thoughtful manner that does not pit mineral resource development against sagegrouse

habitat conservation. VGC is confident BLM and USFS can resolve this conflict by

adhering to the multiple-use principles in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

("FLPMA"), 43 USC § 1701 et seq and the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act ("MUSYA"), 16

U.S.C. § 528 et seq. FLPMA directs the Secretary of the Interior to balance a broad range of resource issues, land 

characteristics, and public needs and values in determining how public lands should be managed.In compliance with this 

balancing requirement in FLPMA, BLM manages the public lands for multiple uses that consider a wide range of resource 

values - including the need to protect wildlife- in the context of the Nation's needs for minerals, energy, food, fiber, and 

other natural resources.

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

140. The Resource Management Plans ("RMPs") that BLM prepares pursuant to the land use

planning directive in FLPMA Section 1 02 designate allowable land uses that are supposed to

reflect a balanced approach to managing the public lands. Because FLPMA does not authorize

the subordination of any land use in preference for sage-grouse habitat conservation, the NTT

proposal to withdraw lands with sage-grouse habitat from mineral entry is not consistent with

FLPMA. The EIS must evaluate how the land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals

recommended in the NTT Report achieve the balance required by FLPMA in managing the

public lands and MUSYA in managing the national forests.

In the case of minerals, FLPMA includes the following specific directive:

" ... the public lands (shall] be managed in a manner that recognizes the Nation's need for

domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including the

implementation ofthe Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (at] 30 U.S.C. 21a ... "

[(43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(12)]

The proposed restrictions and withdrawals from mineral entry outlined in the NTT Report

directly conflict with FLPMA's mineral policy.

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

141. The EIS documents must quantify the adverse impacts to mineral exploration and development

and to the availability of domestic minerals that would occur from implementing the

recommendations in the NTT Report. The EIS documents must fully consider alternatives that

would comply with FLPMA, MUSYA, and the U.S. Mining Law and thus eliminate

inconsistencies with these laws. The EIS documents must provide a detailed discussion of how

the Proposed Action, Agency Preferred Alternative, and Alternatives Considered in Detail would

allow mineral development or discourage - and in the case of withdrawals from mineral entry -

prohibit mineral development. This evaluation should measure the impacts on a state-by-state

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-715

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

basis and on both a national scale.

142. VGC wishes to emphasize that sage-grouse habitat conservation and mineral exploration and

development are not mutually exclusive. VGC encourages BLM and USFS to continue to

implement the agencies' current site-specific, project-by-project approach because these existing policies already achieve 

multiple use and sustained yield. They allow responsible exploration

and development of minerals on public lands and national forests in a manner that recognizes

claim owners' statutory rights under the General Mining Law. They address the Nation's needs

for minerals and the State of Nevada's needs for projects on public land that generate jobs and

tax revenue. Finally, they protect and enhance sage-grouse habitat. All of these are mutually

compatible land management outcomes that already result from implementation of BLM's and

USFS' existing regulatory framework to provide for multiple use and sustained yield of the

nation's public lands and national forests.

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

143. VGC fully supports all reasonable efforts on the federal, state, and local levels to protect and

enhance greater sage-grouse habitat. We also support BLM's objectives to implement measures

to make listing of the greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species unnecessary.

However, the land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals in the NTT Report go too far.

In fact, we believe that implementing the land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals

proposed in the NTT Report would be far more burdensome and a much worse outcome -

especially for mineral interests- -- than if the Secretary of the Interior decides to list the greater

sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species. In this case, BLM's proposed "cure" to

implement the measures outlined in the NTT Report in order to avoid a listing would be far

worse than the "disease" (e.g., listing the species). A listing would not entail withdrawing vast

areas with mineral potential from mineral entry. Additionally, under a listing scenario, project

proponents could use the incidental take provisions in the Endangered Species Act.

All Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

144. Predation, along with mineral production and disease are the 3 greatest factors affecting the

survivability of the sage-grouse, far over shadowing livestock grazing as a possible culprit.

All Both rmc0034rm

145. WLC currently holds mining claims on lithium resources in the Montana Mountains in northern Humboldt County, 

Nevada. Approximately 80% of these lithium resources appear to be identified as

"essential/irreplaceable Habit". This lithium deposit is generally thought to be one of the largest lithium deposits in the 

world and is probably the largest Hectorite (lithium clay) deposit in the world. Hectorite is a very unique mineral and 

WLC's plans include developing the deposit for both lithium and the unique clay properties inherent in the Hectorite. The 

world's demand for lithium is expected to grow exponentially in the years to come as it is the chemistry of choice for the 

electrification of transportation. Lithium is used to produce batteries for the rapidly expanding electric and hybrid car 

industry, computers, and cell phones. Should this domestic deposit not be available for development, the United States 

may have to rely more heavily on foreign entities to provide

All Both rmc0068GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-716 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

lithium. It should be the policy of the United States to utilize domestic lithium. Lithium is considered a critical element by 

many government agencies and as such domestic lithium resources should be assured of availability for future 

development.

146. In its list of Problem Statements, WAFWA (2006) outlined a daunting list of threats to sage grouse persistence:

-Potential impacts to greater sage grouse and sagebrush habitats from minerals recovery include direct habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, noise, air quality degradation, changes in water availability and quality, and increased human presence.

All Both emc0343GB

147. BCA attendance at several Sage Grouse Implementation Team meetings has shown how the Core Areas have shifted still 

farther from sage grouse protection than they were in their initial, badly flawed first draft. In the South-Central Local 

Working Group area, for example, the initial draft of Core Areas purportedly excluded only areas where existing 

development degraded key habitats, although many key habitats that were (and are) still virtually pristine were excluded 

because development was potentially planned. Then, the SGIT was instructed to revise the Core Areas, and one of the 

criteria was to exclude areas where development was permitted, but had not yet occurred. In the final analysis, lands were 

excluded where important habitats were neither extant nor permitted, but where permitting was in process but years 

away (such as the Chokecherry wind project), where permits had not yet been sought out were planned over the span of 

decades (such as APDs in the Atlantic Rim CBM project), and where mining interests were held but even the future intent 

to seek a permit was speculative (in the case of uranium claims). Not to mention a new coal-to-liquids plant proposal which 

was gerrymandered out of Core. The Sage Grouse Implementation Team plans to redraw Core Areas every 5 years, and 

has shown a willingness to exclude prime and pristine habitats from Core status on the basis of new industrial proposals. 

The result is that Core Areas have been defined simply as the lands that industry doesn’t want, where threats are a remote 

possibility. Until the next round of industrial proposals, when heretofore “protected” lands, cause further redrawing of the 

boundaries. This is lunacy, not habitat management, and somebody needs to step in and fix it. That somebody, for federally 

owned lands and minerals, should be the BLM.

All Both emc0343GB

148. We furthermore petition the BLM and Forest Service pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) to defer all mineral sales and leasing as 

well as all project-level approvals within the bounds of the more robust Core Area boundaries we have recommended in 

these comments. The BLM has full authority and discretion to undertake this measure under IM 2004-110 Change 1, and 

doing so will preserve the decision space in the Plan Amendment process and prevent permitted actions that could 

undermine the effectiveness of alternative sage grouse Plan Amednment management direction that will be adopted at the 

end of this NEPA process.

All Both emc0343GB

149. The Plan amendments "will be limited to making land use plan decisions specific to the conservation of sage-grouse." This 

will only serve to cause more conflict. Many inadequate mining, energy, visual, transportation/OHV and other provisions of 

Land Use Plans come into direct conflict with sage-grouse habitat protection requirements, and it is very hard to 

understand just how BLM will split hairs here. See WWP Jarbidge RMP comments, explaining how weak VRM standards, 

lack of mineral withdrawals, energy accommodations and other RMP provisions would adversely affect management of 

sage-grouse habitats for sustainable populations. It will also serve to put more species in jeopardy - as 

sagebrush-dependent species with differing habitat requirements to some degree than sage-grouse get impacted as 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-717

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

agencies shift and intensify all manner of degrading and disturbing uses (such as livestock) into the Sacrifice General 

occupied habitats or non-grouse areas.

150. The Scoping Notice states that the process will recognize "valid existing rights." What are these? How many "valid existing 

rights" are there currently located across the sagebrush biome? Including in all Key, General, Priority, Restoration habitat 

and discarded sagebrush biome areas? Please provide maps of all existing geothermal leases, oil and gas leases, wind 

ROWS, mining claims, mines, etc. and overlay them on all populations, as well as identified PMUs (Nevada, California) or 

other populations. What is considered a "right"? Can BLM revoke permits, leases, etc., or at least significantly amend them 

at any time?

All Both emc0411GB

151. For the past couple of years, agencies have been using another category to try to separate out populations, and minimize 

the importance of losses to the sagebrush habitats. This is the effort to segregate greater sage-grouse into eastern vs. 

western portions of the range on the basis of claims that grouse face different threats in different parts of their range. 

USFWS used this artifice in defending its toothless Warranted but Precluded Finding in litigation, and took it to absurd 

lengths in its arguments there. 

First, many of the same threats occur across the range - livestock grazing, roads no matter what the cause, invasive species, 

mining. 

Second, increasingly renewable energy threats with many of the same impacts as oil and gas are accelerating in the western 

portion of the species range, and mining is exploding in northern and central Nevada and some other western areas. Plus 

hundreds of thousands of acres are now being leased for oil and gas development all over Nevada. Renewable energy 

examples: Major industrial wind farm on Steens Mountain Oregon and new transmission lines, major new transmission 

lines like Gateway and MSTI, geothermal development often by foreign entities (McGinness Hills and other areas), massive 

geothermal leasing proposals are appearing - for over 500,000 acres on Bridgeport Ranger District lands and elsewhere in 

NV. Mining is expanding into new areas where sage-grouse populations are already barely hanging on, and new mining is 

proposed in areas with larger populations, as well. 

In the east, weeds like cheatgrass are increasing (see WBEA Assessment discussion). New and expanded mining, new 

transmission lines, and oil and gas harms are far exceeding those agencies claimed would occur from these new or recently 

expanded developments. See 2012 Yubanet article on failures of Wyoming Core Model in the Powder River Basin.

All Both emc0411GB

152. The NTT at 18 admits that Energy and Minerals development poses risks including: Direct disturbance, displacement, or 

mortality of grouse; Direct loss of habitat, or loss of effective habitat through fragmentation and reduced habitat patch size 

and quality; and cumulative landscape-level impacts. 

However, the NTT and IM provide minimal, uncertain, non-mandatory and ineffective BMPs that mirror those for fluid 

mineral development. These are basically common sense, and what a developer may need to do anyway to avoid 

prosecution for littering. For example: "Clean up refuse." 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-718 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

"Control the spread and effects of non-native plants." This is meaningless. How will this be effectively done in landscapes 

suffering often multiple forms of disturbances all of which promote invasive species? Is it even feasible without eliminating 

livestock disturbance to disturbed sites and adjacent sagebrush areas? What battery of chemicals may be used? BLM has no 

integrated weed strategy, so it is impossible for this to even be applied.

153. Why is there no discussion about protecting flows of all springs, seeps and streams affected by energy and mining activity? 

For example, cyanide heap leach mining causes aquifer declines and aquifer drawdown of springs/streams. Water sources 

critical for wildlife may be severely altered by mining activity, and watershed by associated surface disturbance. These 

systems in arid western lands are typically already under significant stress from degradation by ubiquitously grazed 

livestock, and livestock water developments that remove water from spring sources to promote livestock use, as well as 

gouge stock ponds in springs or drainages. See Sada et al. BLM Technical Bulletin 2003. This alters and disrupt drainage 

networks, flow patterns, and extent of riparian and meadow habitats. There is serious risk of declines in water levels or 

cessation of flows altogether due to combined effects of mining, roading, grazing disturbances - all serving to desertify 

landscapes. Why are there no protections for such threats, especially given the breakneck speed of mining development in 

already fragmented areas of Nevada and other western states?

All Both emc0411GB

154. We recommend that all sage grouse ACECs be withdrawn from oil and gas leasing and recommended for withdrawal of all 

leasable and locatable surface minerals from mining.

All BLM emc0343GB

155. Oil and Gas

Inside Core Areas

• Maximum density of 1 wellpad or other surface disturbance per square mile in core habitats

• For future leasing, either no future leasing in core habitats or No Surface Occupancy leases with no opportunity for 

exceptions or waivers.

• For existing leases, no surface occupancy within 2 miles of the lek or winter habitat and no drilling within 3 miles of the 

lek or winter habitats during the season of use.

• Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry; no surface mining or in situ uranium recovery allowed.

• Total surface disturbance not to exceed 1 to 3 percent of surface area.

Outside Core Areas

• Year-round No Surface Occupancy within 2 miles of the lek or winter habitat, and no drilling within 3 miles of the lek or 

winter habitat during the season of use.

All Both emc0343GB

156. The sagebrush regions of the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain corridor are part of our great heritage as Westerners and 

Americans, still ‐vas 

habitat has been drastically impacted by invasive species such as cheatgrass, frequently exploitative use by grazing and 

mineral interests, and shortfalls in regulation and enforcement.

All Both fla0086gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-719

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

157. We support the NTT recommendation of "excluding mineral development and other large scale disturbances from 

priority habitats." We would also like to see it taken a step further and have no leasing within a 4 mile buffer of leks. 

Research has shown that even a 4 mile buffer would only protect 75%- 80% of nesting hens. Given the NTT goal of 

"maintain and I or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution", this research should lead to a 4 mile buffer at a 

minimum.

CO Both emc0059RM

158. We are very concerned about the lack of scientific validity for the parameters and conditions currently proposed by the 

BLM in the DRMP/DEIS. It is clear that the approach that is currently practiced and proposed has not done anything to 

stem the steep downward trajectory of the sage grouse population. Accordingly, we implore the BLM to place NSO 

restrictions on all areas designated as sage grouse priority (or core) habitat. It is imperative that there is no leasing activity 

within these critical areas and significant protections should be afforded to undisturbed continuous unfragmented habitat 

given that its scarcity. Furthermore, in areas designated as sage grouse occupied habitat, there should be minimal 

disturbance allowed - not more than 1% within 4 miles in any direction of a lek. All human disturbances (roads, ditches, 

buildings, hay meadows, and any other disturbance that deviates from the native sage bmsh vegetation) should count

toward the percentage of disturbed area. Split estate parcels should be given at least the same protections as BLM owned 

fee parcels. It is illogical to afford them any less

protections.

CO BLM emc0057RM

159. The County recommends the BLM to continue supporting the primary goal it has already agreed to implement in the CPW 

Conservation Plan which is to ''Maintain a viable population for GSG while developing energy & mineral resources" which 

is to be implemented by actions such as Investigate opportunities and provide incentives to promote cluster development 

in key GSG habitats. Cluster the development of roads, pipelines, electric lines, and other facilities, and use existing, 

combined corridors where possible." (See page 87 to 93 in the CPW Conservation Plan for the comprehensive set of 

goals, objectives, and actions relating to the energy industry and mineral development.)

CO Both emc0058RM

160. As discussed above, North Park has a very stable sage-grouse population. Anthropogenic land uses have occurred on the 

BLM in the past and we have been able to maintain a healthy sagegrouse population. We have had oil and gas development 

(e.g. the McCallum Oil Field), strip mining, gravel pits, power lines and limited amount of road development. Sage-grouse 

are present even though there has been historical anthropogenic disturbance. We are requesting that analyses be 

conducted to show how the current BLM regulations are not adequate to maintain sage-grouse in North Park. We 

recommend that the BLM analyze disturbance through time, possibly through historic aerial photographs, in conjunction 

with historical sage-grouse population data to determine the historical amount of anthropogenic disturbance in North 

Park that has been consistent with the maintenance of a stable sage-grouse population.

CO BLM emc0060RM

161. Impact of Alternatives on Minerals and Mining - Minerals can only be developed where they occur, consequently, TC is 

concerned with the National Technical Team recommendations that appear to exclude new or expanded mineral leasing 

and mining operations anywhere within areas identified as priority sage grouse habitat. The report recommends 

withdrawal from mineral entry for locatable minerals; closing of priority habitat to non-energy leasable minerals such as 

potash and sodium as well as closure to mineral material sales. This exclusionary approach would jeopardize development 

and use of valuable mineral resources in Northwest Colorado and severely impact the area's economy.

CO Both emc0071RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-720 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

TC is especially concerned about the recommendation for a finding of unsuitability for all surface mining of coal, and 

prohibition on new mining leases for sub-surface coal mines, unless all surface disturbances are placed outside the priority 

habitat area. These recommendations fail to recognize the strict regulation by both federal and state governments over 

coal mining and the protections provided through existing laws, in particular SMCRA, which the State of Colorado 

administers under delegation from the federal Office of Surface Mining. Given the existing regulatory mechanisms 

previously outlined, TC believes that measures necessary to conserve the sage grouse can be effectively addressed through 

traditional SMCRA permitting processes, instead of the exclusionary approach recommended in the National Technical

Team report.

162. The mineral development restrictions recommended by the Technical Team could severely impact even non-commercial 

mineral activities such as county-operated gravel pits located in priority areas. An even more important consideration is 

that reserves for any future gravel pits may fall within mapped priority sage-grouse habitat, potentially limiting all future 

development in the area. As an example, Moffat County has operated gravel pits on federal lands for decades with no 

documented cases or even accusations of harm to grouse, nonetheless, if alternatives are not carefully constructed, 

restrictions on salable minerals such as gravel could jeopardize maintenance of county transportation infrastructure in 

Northwest Colorado.

CO Both emc0071RM

163. Socio-Economic Impacts Must Be Considered in Designing Alternatives - A cursory review of a Greater Sage-grouse 

Priority Map for Northwest Colorado indicates that a major portion of our region is included in either preliminary priority 

habitat or preliminary general habitat. Virtually all of Moffat County is included, as well as significant portions of Routt 

County that overlap known mineral resources that would support existing and future coal mining. This area's rural 

economy is based on

coal mining, oil and gas production, agriculture, and seasonal hunting. These two counties, along with portions of Rio 

Blanco County, are responsible for over half of Colorado's coal production. If only three percent of high priority areas can 

be disturbed, it would appear that Moffat County in particular can have little or no expanded economic development to 

support its citizens, and current economic activity on the land may be threatened as well. This approach drives a draconian 

result; therefore alternatives presented in an EIS should be crafted with due regard for human inhabitants of habitat areas 

as well as the greater sage-grouse.

CO Both emc0071RM

164. The plan does not set any high-priority habitat aside from development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) have both recommended that high priority habitat in the Little Snake Field Office be 

set-aside from development and managed as protected core areas. FWS comments on the proposed plan state that, “For 

high priority habitats, we recommend avoiding energy development and similar activities, and instead, managing them as 

protected core areas.” CPW further emphasizes this, stating that, “...establishment of large greater sage-grouse refuges 

...may ultimately prove to be the only effective means of conserving greater sage-grouse populations in areas of extensive 

oil and gas development.” CPW goes on to recommend that the LSFO preserve options for establishment of future 

refuges by retaining unleased minerals, and avoiding the re-leasing of minerals in high priority habitats. The final LSFO plan 

fails to set-aside high priority sagegrouse habitat from development, or preserve options to set-aside core areas in the 

CO BLM emc0051RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-721

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

future.

165. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation:

Increase the amount of protected priority habitat by aggressively pursuing available tools, including fluid mineral lease 

retirements, voluntary grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and 

mineral claim buyouts.

CO BLM emc0070RM

166. Therefore, in order to maximize conservation benefit given other competing values, we recommend protective 

management of preliminary priority habitat delineated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, along with designation of ACECs 

informed by the following additional criteria:

Consider ACEC designation in high biological value areas that, although encumbered by valid existing rights, are not yet 

developed. This may be particularly feasible where actual development potential is low despite the existence of valid 

existing rights (e.g., due to speculative leasing in areas of low energy potential). It may also be feasible in areas where other 

constraints (e.g., lack of infrastructure, other resource conflicts) will make development relatively difficult and costly. 

Management of ACECs designated in such areas could include aggressive pursuit of available tools to increase the amount 

of protected habitat, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), 

mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts. This is important, as Doherty et. al. (2011) found 

that 1/3 of the 25% core areas have been leased for oil and gas development. Further, 44% of areas with high biological 

value are at risk for energy development.

CO BLM emc0070RM

167. i. The plan does not set aside any high-priority habitat aside from development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) have both recommended that high priority habitat in the Little Snake Field Office 

be set-aside from development and managed as protected core areas. FWS comments on the proposed plan state that, 

"For high priority habitats, we recommend avoiding energy development and similar activities, and instead, managing them 

as protected core areas." CPW further emphasizes this, stating that, "...establishment of large greater sage-grouse 

refuges...may ultimately prove to be the only effective means of conserving greater sage-grouse populations in areas of 

extensive oil and gas development." CPW goes on to recommend that the LSFO preserve options for establishment of 

future refuges by retaining unleased minerals, and avoiding the re-leasing of minerals in high priority habitats. The final 

LSFO plan fails to set-aside high priority sage-grouse habitat from development or preserve options to set-aside core areas 

in the future.

CO BLM emc0070RM

168. The Technical Team Report recommends closing priority habitat to non-energy leasable mineral leasing and mineral 

material sales. This suggested action will have unintended management implications for the transportation system in Moffat 

County, as some of the Moffat County gravel pits are located in priority areas. Even more important is that reserves for 

future gravel pits lie under priority Sage-grouse habitat. Moffat County has operated gravel pits on federal lands for 

decades with no documented cases or even imperial accusations of harm to grouse. Like many of the conditions proposed 

in the Technical Team Report, we are concerned that the proposed limitations have no justification and likely will not help 

CO BLM emc0076RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-722 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

the survival of the grouse. We recommend the EIS allow for the continued and future extraction of gravel from federal 

lands to ensure the safety of those traveling the Moffat County road network. Moffat County encourages cooperative 

discussions with BLM regarding future gravel pit needs, possible future locations, and site visits where concerns regarding 

grouse priority areas may exist.

169. Minerals can only be developed where they occur. Therefore. CMA is particularly concerned with the National Technical 

Team recommendations that appear to exclude new or expanded mineral leasing and mining operations anywhere within 

areas identified as priority sage grouse habitat. The report recommends withdrawal from mineral entry for locatable 

minerals; closing of priority habitat to non-energy leasable minerals such as potash and sodiurn as well as closure to mineral 

material sales. This could jeopardize development and use of valuable mineral resources in Northwest Colorado.

CO Both emc0143RM

170. CMA is greatly concerned over the Technical Team's report recommending a finding of unsuitability for all surface mining 

of coal, and prohibition on new mining leases for sub-surface coal mines unless all surface disturbances are placed outside 

the priority habitat area. These recommendations fail to recognize the strict regulation by both federal and state 

governments

over coal mining and the protections provided through existing laws. in particular the federal Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) which the State of Colorado administers under delegation from the federal Office of Surface 

Mining. This Iaw addresses all surface impacts of coal mining on permitted sites, for both surface and underground coal 

mines.

Throughout the various phases of coal development including exploration, leasing, mining, and reclamation the permitting 

program developed under SMCRA requires collection and review of extensive baseline data related to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, completion of impact assessments for threatened or endangered species and their habitats along with an extensive 

list of sensitive species. Leases are granted with robust stipulations for wildlife protection. SMCRA also regulates support 

infrastructure such as access roads to the mine site. and the leasing process includes consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Mining companies often have large tracts of land that are 

managed for wildlife before and after mining, including sage grouse. Proposals such as those by the National Technical 

Team cause those companies to believe they are being penalized for being good stewards of the land; now the presence of 

the leks on these managed lands may make it impossible to use the land for its intended purposes - mining. CMA therefore 

believes that measures necessary to conserve the sage grouse can be handled through traditional SMCRA permitting 

processes instead of the exclusionary approach recommended in the National Technical Team report.

CO Both emc0143RM

171. The mineral development restrictions recommended by the Technical Team could severely impact even non-commercial 

mineral activities such as county operated gravel pits located in priority areas. Even more important is that reserves for 

future gravel pits lie under preliminary mapped priority sage-grouse habitat. For example, Moffat County has operated 

gravel pits on

federal lands for decades with no documented cases or even accusations of harm to grouse. Nonetheless if alternatives are 

not carefully constructed, restrictions on salable minerals such as gravel could jeopardize maintenance of county 

transportation infrastructure in Northwest Colorado.

CO Both emc0143RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-723

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

172. (One of the NTT recommendations most important for Routt NF) "Propose lands within priority sage‐grouse habitat 

areas for mineral withdrawal." Id. at 14.

CO USFS emc0175RM

173. (One of the NTT recommendations most important for Routt NF) Do not use timing stipulations for mineral development 

instead of prohibition of disturbances in priority habitat. Id. at 21. For valid existing rights, impose the three percent 

limitation, as stated in the Objective cited above. Ibid.

CO USFS emc0175RM

174. (One of the NTT recommendations most important for Routt NF) Close priority sage‐grouse habitat areas to fluid mineral 

leasing. Id. at 22. For existing leases, "apply a 4-mile [no surface occupancy stipulation] around the lek" and "prohibit 

surface-disturbing activities during the nesting and early brood-rearing season in all priority habitat". Id. at 23.

CO USFS emc0175RM

175. (One of the most important NTT recommendations for Routt NF) "Propose withdrawal from mineral entry" for locatable 

minerals. Id. at 24.

CO USFS emc0175RM

176. V. AMEND THE ROUTT PLAN VIA MECHANISMS THAT WILL BEST HELP CONSERVE GSG. The current Forest Plan 

direction potentially applicable to GSG conservation (SRC at 5-6) is inadequate to ensure survival and recovery of the 

species. None of the measures are specifically geared toward protecting GSG, and none of the oil-gas lease stipulations 

apply year-round. In order to ensure the highest likelihood of conserving GSG, the Forest Service will have to limit human 

uses of GSG habitat and surrounding areas. It will be especially important that no oil-gas leasing or mineral development be 

allowed on any GSG habitat and some adjacent land. No road construction can be allowed in GSG habitat, subject to valid 

existing rights. Livestock grazing may have to be adjusted. Also, as is discussed in part 3 below, the current management 

prescription assigned to the draft core areas is not appropriate for ensuring the protection of GSG. Thus new Forest Plan 

direction is needed to incorporate the recommendations outlined by the National Technical Team and ensure the best 

chances for recovery of GSG populations. The agency should amend the Routt Land and Resource Management Plan via 

the following methods, using point 1 alone, or preferably, in combination with points 2 and/or 3:

CO USFS emc0175RM

177. BLM should confirm that approval decisions related to federal minerals beneath private or state

surface will not be conditioned with any proposed conservation measures or restrictions to protect the

sage-grouse or its habitat. The Sage-Grouse NOI states that " [IJands addressed in the RMP and LMP

amendments/revisions will be public lands (including surface-estate split estate lands) managed by the

BLM, and National Forest System lands, respectively, in greater sage-grouse habitats. Any decisions as

to the RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will apply only to Federal lands administered by either the

BLM or the FS." 76 Fed. Reg. at nOll. Based on this statement, Oxy understands that BLM will not be

evaluating in the EIS/amendments to the RMPs, split estate lands in which BLM owns the minerals and a

private surface owner or the State of Colorado owns the surface. Oxy agrees with such an approach.

Specifically, Oxy respe ct fully requests that BLM confirm in any future NEPA documents, including any

draft EISs, Final EISs and Records of Decision ("RODs"), and any revised or amended RMPs that approvals

by BLM (including but not limited to Applications for Permits to Drill ("APDs")) for federal minerals

beneath private or state surface will not be conditioned with any proposed conservation measures or

restrictions to protect the sage-grouse.

CO BLM rmc0021RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-724 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

178. The protection of prior existing rights and the rights of ingress and egress to State Trust lands for

both surface uses and development of the mineral estate as currently stated in the Little Snake

RYlP need to be considerd in the process.

CO Both rmc0050RM

179. We have filed the enclosed lengthy comment with the KFO for two reasons. First, we are

concerned the KFO does not understand the responsibility BLM has to consider the impact to

split private surface resources, like the sage-grouse, from planning decisions for federal minerals.

Second, we believe that BLM in the DRMP/DEIS has failed to take into account the best

available information on the sage-grouse to formulate its management of federal minerals under

the Stolz Ranch. As explained in the comments, Stolz retained Dr. Matt Holloran to assess sagegrouse scientific literature 

and the habitat on the Stolz Ranch. The reports prepared by Dr.

Holloran are found in Exhibits I (Ex. B and D), 11 and are discussed in both the comment letter

on the 2011 August Lease Sale (Ex. 1) and the comment letter on the DRMP/DEIS. Dr.

Holloran's expert conclusions raise serious concerns with the management proposed by BLM for

the long-term survival ofthese sage-grouse.

CO Both rmc0031RM

180. We have reviewed the ·'Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statements to

Incorporate Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures into Land Use Plans and Land

Management Plans,'' 76 Fed. Reg. 77008 (December 9. 2011) and believe you will find the

enclosed Kremmling DRMP/DEIS comment package and disc helpful as: 1) an initial scoping

comment by Stolz on how the BLM conservation measures and planning decisions should take into account the important 

role that private land conservation of sage-grouse habitat, particularly

in the case of split federal minerals, plays in BLM's management of sage-grouse habitat and; 2)

provide you with background that is useful in your work with the KFO "to evaluate the adequacy

of sage-grouse conservation measures" in the revised Kremmling RMP. !d. at 77009-10. As

discussed in detail in the enclosed DRMP/DEIS comment we do not feel the proposed

management of the federal minerals under the Stolz surface has proposed appropriate

conservation measures for the sage-grouse resident on the Stolz Ranch.

CO Both rmc0031RM

181. The following recommendations must be analyzed as a starting point for effective conservation:

Increase the amount of protected priority habitat by aggressively pursuing available tools, including fluid mineral lease 

retirements, voluntary grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and 

mineral claim buyouts.

East Both emc0089RM

182. Therefore, in order to maximize conservation benefit given other competing values, we recommend protective 

management of priority habitat (which should include enough habitat to conserve at least 80-90% of the existing 

population), along with designation of ACECs informed by the following additional criteria:

Consider ACEC designation in high biological value areas that, although encumbered by valid existing rights, are not yet 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-725

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

developed. This may be particularly feasible where actual development potential is low despite the existence of valid 

existing rights (e.g., due to speculative leasing in areas of low energy potential). It may also be feasible in areas where other 

constraints (e.g., lack of infrastructure, other resource conflicts) will make development relatively difficult and costly. 

Management of ACECs designated in such areas could include aggressive pursuit of available tools to increase the amount 

of protected habitat, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), 

mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts. This is important, as Doherty et. al. (2011) found 

that 1/3 of the

25% core areas have been leased for oil and gas development. Further, 44% of areas with high biological value are at risk 

for energy development.

183. There is no basis to withdraw public lands solely on the basis of potential impacts on sage grouse habitat. As shown, there 

is no reliable data supporting the premise that sage grouse numbers are declining. Indeed, numbers appear to be stable or

increasing. Id. For example, sage grouse numbers declined in Idaho, even though there is no oil and gas development.

VRLP is also concerned about the hostility to all oil and gas, coal and mineral development seen in the IM and Technical 

Team Report. The number of reports only document that sage grouse leave an active drill site or field. There is no research

showing whether the birds relocated and no data suggesting that they died as a result of energy development. Relocation 

should be researched, especially any adjustments made by sage grouse.

The Technical Team Report would greatly restrict oil and gas development through the 3% surface disturbance ceiling. 

Assuming this is applied throughout the identified sage grouse range, then oil and gas drilling would be shut down 

throughout much of the Rocky Mountain states. This is true for existing leases based on BLM's claimed authority to impose 

conditions of approval that change lease stipulations and operations. The impacts on natural gas and oil production would 

be significant.

Moreover, the impacts on states' economies and the communities would be even more severe. Wyoming has seen an 

increase in energy development. That coincided in part with drought, West Nile Virus and high numbers of predators. 

Until all of the factors can be weighed, compared and considered this rush to judgment is unwarranted.

East Both emc0155rm

184. The initial designation of potential sage grouse habitat appears to be very broad and general, and affect tens of millions of

acres across the western U.S. The amount of land that mining actually impacts, especially in the state of Nevada, is a 

fraction of identified sage grouse habitat. The proposed EIS should identify the actual acreage of land that mining occupies 

vs. the amount of land designated as sage grouse habitat. Due to the small fraction of land occupied by mining, mining 

should not be prohibited or withdrawn in areas designated as sage grouse habitat (either Priority or General Habitat).

NVCA Both rmc0027GB

185. General Moly will be directly impacted by BLM's sage-grouse conservation measures because it has substantial interests in 

mining claims located on lands within the 1986 Shoshone-Eureka Resource Area Resource Management Plan ("RMP"). This 

RMP is one of the 68 BLM planning areas that will be amended to incorporate the conservation measures that BLM selects 

as a result of the EIS/SEIS process.

NVCA Both rmc0037GB

186. Sage grouse habitat requirements are so broad and general, and affect millions of acres across 11 states in the western U.S. 

The amount of land that industry actually impacts (specifically mining and energy projects), especially in the state of Nevada, 

NVCA Both rmc0035GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-726 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

is a fraction of identified sage grouse habitat.

187. minerals: Mineral and energy exploration, development, extraction, transmission lines, and operations have been identified 

by the USFWS and others as a cause of Sage Grouse habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. Current agencies' 

regulatory authority appears inadequate to effectively avoid or minimize these adverse impacts. Mitigation required for 

adverse impacts can provide much funding to federal and state agencies and others concerned, but there is little or no 

current evidence of any actual benefits to Sage Grouse and its habitat from required mitigation and no way to judge 

whether mitigation requirements are adequate and whether mitigation is "successful," whether range-wide, regionally, or 

in each PMU.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

188. a. the agencies should examine mercury and other toxic contamination impacts on Sage Grouse and its habitat from mining 

activities and develop conservation measures, in conjunction with other federal and state agencies, to avoid or minimize 

toxic impacts. While mercury emissions have decreased substantially in recent years to about 1,100 pounds in 2010, some 

emission levels from mines remain high. Fugitive mercury emissions from heap leach pads, tailings impoundments and 

waste rock dumps may result in more significant pollution of lower sagebrush habitats occupied by Sage Grouse. We 

suggest overlaying Sage Grouse habitat maps with mining areas to pinpoint where impacts could be occurring.

b. the agencies should require buffers around priority habitats, including winter habitat, and no surface occupancy (NSO) 

to avoid direct adverse impacts on Sage Grouse and its habitats.

c. the agencies should also require seasonal and timing restrictions to avoid and reduce adverse impacts.

d. the agencies should withdraw priority habitats from mineral entry.

e. the agencies should require NSO for exploratory activities and allow no permanent disturbances (roads, pads) which 

would require rehabilitation and restoration.

f. the agencies should set strict disturbance limits for all mining activities.

g. the agencies should not allow mining expansions into priority habitat

h. the agencies should require bonding sufficient for full reclamation and restoration of priority habitats and also for general

habitat from mining disturbances and impacts.

i. the agencies should require Sage Grouse habitat impact fees for unavoidable adverse impacts.

j. the agencies should close priority habitat areas to fluid mineral uses and not renew expiring leases.

k. the agencies should not allow the use of Categorical Exclusions for any mining or energy development proposals in 

priority habitat.

l. the agencies should mandate BMPs.

m. the agencies should pursue land acquisitions and conservation easements in priority habitats.

n. the agencies should eliminate invalid claims.

o. the agencies should close priority habitats to salable mineral leasing and rehabilitate areas damaged by salable mineral 

development in priority habitats.

NVCA Both emc0283GB

189. Interestingly, Barrick's ranches may provide unique opportunities for mitigation of impacts from its mining operations. As 

operating ranches, these off-site restoration opportunities, including restoration of habitat on fee land, would likely be 

unavailable without their connection to the mining operations. Creating new riparian vegetation or wetlands to mitigate 

NVCA Both emc0277GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-727

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

for potentially impacted wetlands, improving degraded habitats to replace impacted areas, and developing water sources 

when access to water is prevented due to safety fencing are just a few examples of off-site mitigation that potentially could 

be available on Barrick's ranch lands.

190. vii. Socioeconomic impacts

Precious metals are a non-renewable resource; therefore sustain ability of the direct and indirect mining workforce is 

dependent on the continued expansion of mines and the exploration and development of new deposits. Mineral resources 

are only located where specific geologic conditions and events occurred; they are site-specific. Consequently, mineral 

deposits that occur in sage-grouse habitat must be developed in sage-grouse habitat. Moving to non-habitat is not an 

option. Thus, it is no overstatement to say that overly restrictive sage-grouse protections that preclude mineral 

development would be devastating to mining workers, local communities, and the State of Nevada.

The mining industry is a significant component of Nevada's economy as a whole and the economic foundation of many 

communities in rural Nevada. Nevada accounts for nearly 80% of gold production in the United States and gold represents 

nearly 90% of the value of the total output of the mineral industry in Nevada. Barrick produces approximately 60% of all the 

gold produced in Nevada, with 2011 production of over three million ounces valued at $3.8 billion dollars. In addition to 

investing over $3.6 billion dollars in building the infrastructure associated with these world class mining operations, Barrick 

spent over $41 million dollars in 2011 to explore for additional mineral resources in Nevada and will continue to invest at 

this level in future years.

The mining industry has been the only bright spot in a state economy which has declined dramatically due to the economic 

downturn. No other sector of the economy has increased its contribution to state services, education and local 

governments more than the mining industry in the last four years-in fact nearly all other major sectors' contributions have 

declined.32 Barrick's mining operations in Nevada provide the largest percentage of the mining sector's contributions to 

Nevada in these areas.

In 2011 Barrick employed over 3,950 Nevadans directly and is estimated to have generated over 20,600 jobs in businesses 

in Nevada which supply goods and services to support its mining and mineral exploration activities.33 Jobs in the mining 

industry are on average the highest paid in the state. Barrick's purchases of goods and services in the state of Nevada 

amounted to over $900 million in 2010. Direct taxes paid by Barrick, which included the Net Proceeds of Mines Tax, Sales 

and Use Tax, Property Tax, and Modified Business Tax, amounted to $194 million in 2011. Approximately 40% of these tax 

payments stay with local government and fund city and county operations, local education expenditures, and other 

important public services. In a number of cases, this tax revenue is the most significant revenue received by local 

governments near Barrick's

mine sites.

NVCA Both emc0277GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-728 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Mining is vital to the economy of northern Nevada. For example, the population of Elko, Nevada increased, primarily from 

mining related activity, from approximately 5,500 in 1980 to approximately 18,000 at the 2010 census. Without expansion 

and new discoveries on public lands, which comprise nearly 85% of the state of Nevada, the mining jobs that support Elko 

and surrounding areas cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the impacts of lost mining and mine support jobs would then 

spread to the public sector (including law enforcement, fire fighters, teachers, and regulatory jobs), medical, retail, 

wholesale, real estate, and other sectors of the local economy.

Although mining has historically been a cyclical industry, downturns are typically related to lack of economic mineral 

resources or the means to acquire and process the minerals, not regulatory restrictions on mineral entry opportunities. It 

is therefore absolutely critical that the agencies act cautiously before creating a "bust" when mineral availability and 

processing technology are sufficient to carry the mining boom for many more years. It is also critical that the EIS process 

fairly consider these potentially devastating economic impacts.

191. Mining and mineral exploration projects are already governed and permitted adequately under

existing regulations. I know there are permits which include protective stipulations for Sage

Grouse. I am personally aware that the stipulations I have been involved in have been observed. I

have never seen a case of intentional abuse or disrespect for Nevada’s game or other resources by

the exploration or mining community. As a certified environmental auditor and management

program developer (ISO 14001), I would never allow any such abuse on my project areas.

NVCA Both emc0282GB 

emc0115rm

192. CRI operates the Rochester Mine which is located 23 miles northeast of Lovelock on the southern end of the Humboldt 

Mountain Range in Pershing County, Nevada.

Sage grouse summer, winter, and breeding habitat has been identified by past Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) maps 

in Rochester mine's project area. NDOW has not, however, indentified any active leks or viable sage grouse populations 

around the project area. According to NDOW's Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation Project Report (December 2011 Final 

Performance Report):

"The Pershing County portion of this planning unit has suffered tremendous losses of sagebrush habitats due to wildfire 

over the last decade with some mountain ranges burning almost completely (e.g. Eugene Mountains). The most viable 

population within the county is the Sonoma PMU. Twenty-four leks were surveyed in this PMU in 2011 with only 6 being 

active. A peak total of 52 males were observed resulting in an average of 8.7 males per active lek. This is a 7% decline from 

the previous year where the average attendance was 9.4 males. The long-term viability of PMUs such as the Eugene, 

Majuba, East Range, and Humboldt PM Us is considered very low, with some of these populations potentially extirpated 

already.'

NVCA Both emc0302GB

193. The Rochester Mine is located in the Humboldt PMU with the closest viable population in the Sonoma PMU. With 

long-term viability considered to be very low, how is BLM going to manage proposed projects in areas such as these? If 

priority habitat areas are consistent with previous NDOW sage grouse habitat maps, the Rochester mine would have 

NVCA Both emc0302GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-729

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

more than 3% of the habitat area with direct surface impacts. Since all viable populations are several mountain ranges away, 

how can BLM justify identifying areas in and surrounding the Rochester mine as priority habitat? It would seem that priority 

habitat should be focused in areas where viable populations exist or are somewhat close to be able to expand. A clear 

focus area of the EIS scoping document must be appropriate habitat classification to avoid habitat designation in areas that 

have little to no biological value for the Sage Grouse.

194. In the National Technical Team's (NTT) Document (December 21, 2011) it is proposed that for saleable mineral materials 

all priority habitat areas should be closed to mineral material sales. There are no suggestions for off-site mitigation which 

appears counter to the multiple-use mandate of BlM administered public lands. CRI believes that off-site mitigation should 

be an option for saleable mineral materials, especially in habitat areas where no viable sage grouse population exists.

NVCA Both emc0302GB

195. Instruction Memorandum ("1M") IM-2012-044, "BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy" and the 

December 2011 National Technical Team Report entitled, A Report on National Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures 

("the NTT Report") propose draconian conservation measures that could stop mineral exploration and development and 

other private-sector uses of public land under the guise of sage-grouse habitat conservation. The large-scale land use 

restrictions and prohibitions - including the withdrawal oflands with high-priority sage grouse habitat from mineral entry as 

proposed in the NIT Report - are unprecedented and unwarranted.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

196. BLM and USFS already have rules and policies in place to ensure that mineral exploration projects protect sage-grouse 

habitat. NVMRA members have first-hand experience operating under and complying with these rules and policies. The 

BLM Notices and BLM and USFS Plans of Operations that authorize our exploration activities on BLM-administered public 

lands and on USFS-administered national forest lands contain numerous permit conditions and stipulations pertaining to 

sage-grouse habitat protection. These measures include seasonal restrictions on when and where we can operate and 

defme sage-grouse habitat areas (primarily leks and a surrounding buffer zone) that are off-limits to our activities. Because 

these existing rules and policies already provide substantial protection to sage-grouse habitat, the proposed land use 

prohibitions and withdrawals are excessive and completely unnecessary.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

197. As described in the document entitled "White Paper on BLM and U.S. Forest Service Preliminary Habitat Map!" the map is 

not supposed to be used to make project-level decisions:

"This tool provides resource managers with broad-scale information to guide conservation and land-use planning efforts in 

the context of greater sage-grouse management at the landscape scale (1 :100,000). This map is not intended to be used to 

delineate sage-grouse habitat at the project-level scale. To apply these results to specific locations it is necessary to 

conduct a field investigation by a qualified biologist for the purpose of impact assessment."

Regrettably, the decisions that will result from the use of this map in the NEPA analysis, the resulting EIS documents, and 

ultimately the amended Resource Management Plans ("RMPs") and Forest Plans will influence project-scale land users such 

as owners of mining claims. As described in the NTT Report, BLM is proposing to use the map showing Preliminary Priority 

Habitat as the basis for withdrawing some or all of these lands from mineral entry. BLM's proposal to make these areas 

off-limits to mineral exploration and development will profoundly and adversely affect NVMRA member companies that 

NVCA Both emc0327GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-730 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

have mining claims and other landholdings in these areas. These impacts must be analyzed in the EIS under the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA") and other relevant laws.

198. The BLM-USFS map shows vast areas in magenta that are designated Preliminary Priority Habitat. Taken at face value, this 

suggests that all of the areas shown in magenta in Washoe, Humboldt, Lander, Eureka, Elko, White Pine, Churchill, Nye, 

and Lincoln counties may no longer be open to exploration and development. Withdrawal of these areas from mineral 

entry would essentially condemn (i.e., take) many NVMRA member companies' exploration properties and dramatically 

reduce their property holdings which are their primary asset base. BLM's proposal to withdraw lands from mineral entry 

thus represents a substantial threat to the future of these companies which must be evaluated in the EIS and considered 

under the balancing required by FLPMA.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

199. The scale of the map is inadequate for the scope and ramifications of the decisions that BLM will ultimately make using this 

map. BLM should not use this landscape scale map to make land use decisions that will affect specific mineral project areas 

selected for withdrawal from mineral entry. BLM and USFS must obtain and use better data prior to making important land 

use decisions that will affect the future of specific mineral projects and the companies and individuals that have mining 

claims in areas with priority sage-grouse habitat.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

200. The scale and accuracy of the data used to prepare the habitat map used as the baseline data for the EIS documents and 

upon which land use decisions will be made are of utmost importance in the case of minerals because mineral deposits do 

not occur on a landscape scale. They only occur in small, site-specific locations dictated by a narrow range of geologic 

factors including rock type, mineralization, alteration, structural preparation (faulting), and erosion. Mineral deposits can

only be developed where they are found and cannot be moved to another location - such as a location that does not have 

sage-grouse habitat. According to the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences2 economically 

viable mineral deposits are extremely rare:

"Only a very small portion of Earth's continental crust (less than 0.01%) contains economically viable mineral deposits. 

Thus, mines can only be located in those few places where economically viable deposits were fonned and discovered."

NVCA Both emc0327GB

201. Scoping Issue No.5 The EIS Documents Must Evaluate Ways to Minimize Risks to Mining Claims Owners who Have Made 

Significant Investments on their Claims

Prohibiting mineral exploration and development on the lands shown in magenta on the BLM - USFS habitat map would 

result in significant economic hann to the State of Nevada and the many companies, including NVMRA members, whose 

mineral projects are located in priority habitat areas. Field studies to determine the actual presence of sage-grouse habitat 

and the potential for mineral resources in these areas are the only way to identify and quantify the scope of the resource 

conflicts that would result from withdrawing these lands from mineral entry. The EIS document for Nevada must discuss 

and quantify the adverse effect on companies, rural mining communities, and the economy of Nevada of the proposed 

mineral withdrawals. The EIS document must also present alternatives that minimize these impacts and assess the 

cumulative impacts associated with landscape-scale land use restrictions and mineral withdrawals.

NVCA Both emc0327GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-731

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

202. NVMRA member companies, like all other mineral exploration and development companies, have made substantial 

investments in their mineral projects based on their reliance on longstanding laws and BLM land use policies that 

implement these laws. Specifically, NVMRA members have located claims pursuant to Section 22 of the Mining Law (30 

U.S.C. § 22) on lands open to location:

"All valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States ... shall be free and open to exploration . . ., and the 

lands in which they are found to occupation ... under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or 

rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the 

United States."

NVCA Both emc0327GB

203. In making investments to locate claims and explore for minerals on public lands, NVMRA member companies have also 

relied on the RMPs that BLM district offices have developed to govern management of these lands. These RMPs clearly 

identify lands with special management considerations and lands that are open to location under the Mining Law and 

available for other multiple uses.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

204. The proposed withdrawal of lands with priority sage-grouse habitat from mineral entry is a draconian change in the way in 

which BLM has managed these lands for many years. Such an unprecedented and abrupt change would put at risk the 

investments that NVMRA members have made in their projects.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

205. Given this risk, the EIS documents must quantify how the proposed withdrawals would interfere with the investments that 

NVMRA members and other similarly-situated companies have projects on lands that may be withdrawn, and evaluate 

ways to minimize jeopardizing investment-backed expectations of claim owners on lands proposed for withdrawal. This 

analysis should also disclose and quantify the potential impact to U.S. taxpayers from the regulatory takings claims that 

could arise in response to implementing the land use restrictions and withdrawals recommended in the NTT Report at 

projects where these measures will interfere with substantial investments.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

206. NVMRA contends that the land use restrictions and prohibitions - especially the proposed withdrawal of high-priority 

sage-grouse habitat areas from mineral entry are not consistent with FLPMA's multiple use mandate or the specific 

directive pertaining to minerals in FLPMA § 102(a)(12):

" ... the public lands [shall] be managed in a manner that recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, 

food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including the implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 

[at] 30 U.S.C. 2la ... "

[(43 U.S.C. l70l(a)(12)]

The proposed restrictions and withdrawals from mineral entry outlined in the NTT Report directly conflict with FLPMA's 

requirement that the Secretary must manage public lands to respond to the Nation's needs for minerals.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

207. A balanced approach to public land management is especially important to states like Nevada with valuable mineral 

resources and to NVMRA's member companies who own claims in lands thought - based on faulty data - to contain priority 

sage-grouse habitat. Like many other Nevada mineral companies, NVMRA member companies have made substantial 

NVCA Both emc0327GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-732 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

investments in exploring for and developing valuable mineral deposits on their claims.

208. As discussed above, NVMRA member companies have worked with BLM to conduct their mineral exploration projects to 

avoid impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat. The site specific measures that BLM requires on a project-by-project basis 

are examples of the regulatory mechanisms already in place that require project proponents to protect and conserve 

sage-grouse habitat while at the same time authorizing mineral exploration and development activities. This balanced 

approach to land use management complies with FLPMA and demonstrates that sagegrouse habitat protection and mineral 

exploration and development can and do co-exist.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

209. BLM's and USFS' current site-specific, project-by-project approach is the best way to

make land use decisions responsive to FLPMA's and USFS law's balanced land management

directive. Moreover, BLM's and USFS' existing policies already achieve the following desirable land management outcomes:

1) Meet a project proponent's needs to explore for minerals on their claims and develop discoveries of valuable mineral 

deposits;

2) Recognize claim owners' statutory rights under the General Mining Law;

3) Address the Nation's needs for minerals and the State of Nevada's needs for projects on public land that generate jobs 

and tax revenue; and

4) Protect and enhance sage-grouse habitat.

These are mutually compatible outcomes that already result from implementation of BLM's existing regulatory framework 

which responds to the overarching principles in FLPMA and USFS laws that BLM and USFS must consider a wide range of 

needs and resource values in managing the public lands and national forests.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

210. NVMRA members with projects in areas that may have sage-grouse habitat will be adversely affected if the land use 

restrictions, prohibitions and withdrawals recommended in the NIT Report are applied broadly to the magenta areas (i.e., 

the Preliminary Priority Habitat areas) on the current BLM-USFS map. The harm to NVMRA members will be replicated 

across the State of Nevada as other similarly situated mineral exploration and development companies face the loss of 

their projects and the investments made to explore and develop their projects.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

211. If this happens, Nevada's mineral industry will grind to a halt. As shown on the attached map entitled "Sage Grouse Priority 

Habitat and Major Mineral Deposits" (see the last page of this letter), the Preliminary Priority and General Habitat areas on 

the BLM-USFS habitat map are located in parts of the state that contain most of Nevada's major mineral deposits. The 

habitat areas also coincide with almost all of the State's recognized gold trends. A substantial portion of NVMRA member 

companies' projects are located along these gold trends in areas with sagegrouse habitat shown on the BLM-USFS habitat 

map.

NVCA Both emc0327GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-733

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

212. Secondly, the grass-roots exploration conducted by NVMRA member companies and other Nevada exploration 

companies in areas that have significant mineral potential as well as sage-grouse habitat is critical to the future of mining in 

Nevada. Mineral exploration represents the entrepreneurial, Research & Development (R&D) arm of mining. Mineral 

exploration today discovers tomorrow's mines. Thus, the mineral deposits that are being explored throughout Nevada -

including deposits that are within the gold trends and sage-grouse habitat areas shown on the attached map - are essential 

to creating and maintaining a robust pipeline of projects that can become future projects that create high-paying jobs, 

generate revenue for state and local governments, and help meet the Nation's needs for domestic minerals. NVMRA 

member companies, other small mineral exploration companies and individuals conduct much of this exploration work.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

213. Withdrawing all or some of the lands where Nevada's mineral deposits and gold trends are located from mineral entry will 

have a devastating effect on Nevada's mining future. Withdrawing these lands from mineral entry would put some of the 

best mineral exploration terrain in the world off-limits to exploration and development. This will dramatically diminish the 

odds of making discoveries of valuable mineral deposits that can ultimately become a mine. This will stifle job creation and 

impede Nevada's economic recovery. Increasing the Nation's reliance on foreign sources of minerals also threatens our 

national security.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

214. The EIS documents must carefully assess the cumulative impacts of any proposed withdrawals from mineral entry and how 

withdrawing these lands will limit exploration and discovery in the future. As an example of the impacts that such 

withdrawals could have in the future, if the BLM-USFS Habitat Map were made 10 years ago, the newly emerging Pequop 

Trend in Elko County - the site of Nevada's newest discovery at Long Canyon - might never have been found because these 

lands might have been withdrawn as this area appears to contain priority sage-grouse habitat according the BLM-USFS map.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

215. The EIS documents must attempt to quantify the socioeconomic impacts of the lost discovery opportunities that would 

result from withdrawing lands with known world-class mineral deposits in highly prospective gold trends in areas where 

geologists continue to explore for and find new deposits. This analysis should compare and contrast the impacts associated 

with the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, the Agency Preferred Alternative, and Alternatives Considered in 

Detail. The NVMRA strongly encourages BLM and USFS to select an Agency Preferred Alternative that does not ruin 

Nevada's mineral economy by placing a significant portion of Nevada's mineralized lands off-limits to exploration and 

development.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

216. FLPMA, the U.S. Mining Law, and BLM policies that implement these laws such as the 43 C.F.R. § 3809 surface management 

regulations appropriately recognize that mineral deposits are rare and unique geologic features that can only be developed 

where they are found. Unfortunately, the NTT Report proposal to withdraw lands with sage-grouse habitat from mineral 

entry does not recognize this.

The EIS docwnents must address this fact and evaluate alternatives that focus on the fixed location and spatial constraints 

associated with mineral development. At a minimwn, the EIS docwnents should evaluate two alternatives in the context of 

minimizing resource conflicts with minerals:1) off-site mitigation; and 2) no-net loss of habitat. These alternatives are 

described below.

NVCA Both emc0327GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-734 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

The Off-Site Mitigation Alternative: In locations where mineral resources are co-located with priority sage-grouse habitat, 

off-site mitigation should be the principal land management tool to minimize impacts to sage-grouse habitat and to resolve 

resource conflicts. Rather than prohibit mineral project development in habitat areas for project components that cannot 

be moved (i.e., the ore body) and/or where alternative locations for ancillary facilities are impractical or do not exist due 

to topographic, property, or other constraints, off-site mitigation should be the standard approach.

The No Net Loss of Sage-Grouse Habitat Alternative: This alternative is related to the Off-Site Mitigation Alternative. 

Unavoidable impacts to priority sage-grouse habitat by mining of mineral deposits in areas with priority sage-grouse habitat 

should be mitigated through off-site mitigation measures that replace lost habitat using the principle of no net loss of 

habitat. This alternative would off-set impacts due to mineral development and could result in significant private-sector 

investment in habitat enhancement measures.

217. NVMRA member companies embrace all reasonable efforts on the federal, state, and local levels to protect and enhance 

greater sage-grouse habitat. The sage-grouse conservation measures in place at NVMRA member companies' exploration 

projects demonstrate our members' commitment to sage-grouse protection. However, the land use restrictions, 

prohibitions, and withdrawals in the NTT Report go too far and conflict with BLM's FLPMA responsibilities to manage 

public lands with a balanced approach the recognizes the importance of a wide range of resource issues on public lands and 

the need for domestic sources of minerals.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

218. Much of Nevada has struggled for the last several years to meet the challenges of the prolonged economic downturn and 

record unemployment rates. However, in rural mining counties, mining has kept unemployment well below the 

double-digit rates that have plagued the rest of the state. The State cannot afford to lose mining as the principal economic 

engine in these rural mining counties where sage-grouse habitat is also located.

NVCA Both emc0327GB

219. A balanced approach to public land management is especially important to states like Nevada

with valuable mineral resources and to companies like Eureka Moly that have made substantial

investments in developing valuable mineral deposits. Because the location of mineral resources

is determined by geology; mineral deposits can only be developed where they are found.

Consequently, the withdrawal of mineral areas with high-priority sage-grouse habitat would

result in significant economic harm to the State of Nevada and any company whose mineral

deposit is located in a high-priority habitat area.

NVCA Both emc0335GB

220. The resolution of the satellite imagery data used to prepare the BLM-USFS Greater Sage-Grouse

Preliminary Habitat Map is too coarse for the ultimate use of this map. BLM is proposing to use

this landscape-scale map to make decisions that will affect project-scale activities and uses of

public lands - including withdrawing lands from mineral entry. The coarse scale of this map is

thus incongruent with the scope of the decisions that will be made using this map and the much

finer scale projects that will be affected by these decisions.

As described in the document entitled "White Paper on BLM and U.S. Forest

Service Preliminary Habitat Map1

NVCA Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-735

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

" the map is not supposed to be used to make project-level

decisions:

"This tool provides resource managers with broad-scale information to guide

conservation and land-use planning efforts in the context of greater sage-grouse

management at the landscape scale (1: 100,000). This map is not intended to be

used to delineate sage-grouse habitat at the project-level scale. To apply these

results to specific locations it is necessary to conduct a field investigation by a

qualified biologist for the purpose of impact assessment."

Regrettably, the decisions that will result from the use of this map in the NEPA analysis, the

resulting EIS documents, and ultimately the amended RMPs and Forest Plans will influence

project-scale land users including VGC and other mining claim owners. As described in the NIT

Report, BLM is proposing to use the map showing Preliminary Priority Habitat as the basis for

withdrawing some or all of these lands from mineral entry. BLM's proposal to make these areas

off-limits to mineral exploration and development will profoundly and adversely affect mining

claim owners and other landowners in these areas.

221. The scale of the preliminary habitat map is inadequate for the scope and ramifications of the decisions that BLM and USFS 

will ultimately make using this map. BLM and USFS should not use this landscape-scale map to make land use decisions that 

will affect specific mineral project areas selected for withdrawal from mineral entry. BLM and USFS must obtain and use 

better data prior to making important land use decisions that will affect the future of specific mineral projects and the

companies and individuals that have mining claims in areas with priority sage-grouse habitat.

BLM's and USFS' proposed use of a map that was made using coarse-resolution data with little

or no field verification will lead to flawed EIS documents and ultimately to bad land use

decisions. It is absolutely critical that more field data be collected before BLM and USFS

proceed with preparing the EIS documents

NVCA Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB

222. FLPMA, the U.S. Mining Law, and BLM policies that implement these laws such as the 43 CFR

3809 surface management regulations appropriately recognize that mineral deposits are rare and

unique geologic features that can only be developed where they are found. They cannot be

moved to a different location - such as a location without sage-grouse habitat. These laws and

regulations give mining claim owners certain rights to use and occupy public lands to explore for

and develop minerals while at the same time requiring that these mineral activities be done in a

manner to protect the environment and to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation.

The proposal in the NTT Report to withdraw areas with priority sage-grouse habitat from

mineral entry is completely inconsistent with these laws and policies. Implementation of the

proposed withdrawals would have a profoundly adverse impact on the rights of claim owners and

the future of mining in Nevada. The significant portion of northern and central Nevada shown in

magenta on the BLM-USFS map is thought to be priority sage-grouse habitat. Unfortunately, the

NVCA Both rmc0029RM, 

rmc0060GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-736 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

magenta areas on the BLM-USFS habitat map contain most of Nevada's known hardrock

mineral resources.

223. As a primary stakeholder, however, we are fully aware of the fact our property is affected by a

checkerboard land ownership pattern in which the Bureau has management jurisdiction for the public. It also lies within 

areas identified as supporting 75-100% breeding population densities of the species (2010). For these reasons, we would be 

opposed and are extremely concerned in supporting any objectives or conservation measures that would have a direct or 

indirect impact on our abilities to develop our private surface and sub-surface land and resources. Such conservation 

measures would include, but are not limited to, actions that could place restrictions on access, surface disturbing activity 

levels or hinder the ability to locate, explore and extract mineral resources.

NVCA Both rmc0053GB

224. In the Mining Industry permits which may require an EA or EIS include Prospecting Permits; Exploration Permits; and Mine 

Operation and Reclamation permits. The ODFW EIS management recommendations in the Habitat Category 1 and 2 areas 

must be analyzed to determine how the Avoidance or Mitigation for "Net Benefit" strategies will affect the ability to 

develop valuable mineral deposits in these areas.

OR Both rmc0036GB

225. The ODFW EIS should consult with the Bob Houston's office Oregon Office of Mine Regulation and Reclamation; and the 

district BLM/FS permitting specialists to determine potential impacts to existing and potential mining operations.

In addition, the ODFW EIS must determine the potential impacts to development of Industrial Mineral and Metallic mineral 

resources Located in Habitat Category 1 and 2 areas, that a currently known from the numerous mineral Resource 

Investigations conducted in Eastern Oregon by the US Geological Survey and Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries over the course of the last 80 years.

For State information the applicant should consult with Mark Ferns at the eastern regional office of DOGAMI in /Baker 

City; for Federal information the USGS Western regional office in Denver or Spokane should be able to provide valuable 

information.

OR Both rmc0036GB

226. The ODFW EIS should also include an analysis of potential increased costs to Public Works and Improvement projects that 

rely on "Free" rock and mineral material from rock quarries located on federal lands in Sage Grouse country. For instance, 

many road projects now depend on road armor or base materials mined from sometimes long inactive borrow pits that 

have partially vegetated with Sage during long periods of activity. If located in Category 1 or 2 areas or migration corridors, 

these borrow pits may require an EIS to reopen. Otherwise a more distant source for rock must be found; increasing 

transportation and logistical costs to public funded projects.

OR Both rmc0036GB

227. The ODFW files should provide specific information and the basis of an initial assessment on Public Improvements related 

to wildlife programs in eastern Oregon. In addition, to determine potential economic impacts; in conjunction with BLM/FS 

and DOGAMI staff conduct an inventory of Federal and State lands containing active and inactive borrow pits, and their 

remaining accessible and potential reserves and availability for use on Public Improvement projects. The EIS then should 

determine the replacement costs for materials withdrawn from the inventory due to the ODFW management 

recommendations.

OR Both rmc0036
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-737

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

228. If the ODFW can provide a blanket exemption to the livestock grazing industry which does not apparently adversely 

impact Sage Grouse habitat, why can't they provide an exemption for future mining operations and permitting process 

which disturb less than 100 acres. and Dispersed non-motor oriented recreation and all other activities which have not 

been shown as a Listing Factor?

OR Both rmc0036GB

229. Calico is very concerned that the proposed amendments to incorporate measures for sage-grouse conservation into land 

use plans could have an adverse effect on our ability to develop the Grassy Mountain Gold Deposit. These measures 

represent an over-arching programmed approach to wildlife conservation during a time when our local and regional 

economies are suffering greatly. It is our strong view. supported by years of site-specific and project-specific mining 

development and experience, that to maintain and/or enhance local ecosystems like those within which sensitive species 

like sage-grouse exist, the conservation measures themselves must be site-specific and project specific.

OR Both rmc0074GB

230. To be effective and to support real multiple use land management, it is Calico's view that future programs must focus on 

site-specific and project-specific management practices that provide for species conservation, but recognize legal rights for 

preexisting mining claims in those areas.

OR Both rmc0074GB

231. ODOT recognizes the challenge that the BLM / USFS will face in developing a comprehensive land management plan that 

effectively addresses the many concems and interest while attempting to focus on the greater sage-grouse and habitat 

improvement. The demand on public lands is diverse. In reviewing the Jan 10, 2012 News Release, initiating the planning 

process and identifying the public meeting schedule to be conducted around Oregon, it was encouraging to see that a list 

of issues or concerns had already been identified including: mineral materials and rights-of-way. How mineral material sites 

and highway rights-of-way are identified and dealt with in this plan is of great concem for ODOT.

OR Both emc0155GB

232. In the ODFW Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy of Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance 

Populations and Habitat, it states that greater sage-grouse currently occupy habitats in Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Hamey, 

Lake, Malheur and Union Counties. BLM is identified as the primary land manager of greater sage-grouse habitat, 

controlling 70% of the habitat in Oregon. The BLM web site indicates that in Oregon BLM manages 15.7 million acres, with 

12.5 million acres lying within the 7 counties shown as containing greater sage-grouse.

In these 7 counties, ODOT is responsible for nearly 2000 miles of Federal and State transportation system. Within the 

identified 7 counties, the local road depmiments are responsible for more than 6000 miles of county road system. In 

addition to the highway system, in these counties ODOT has been granted long term use of 195 material source propeliies 

located on federal land.

The ODFW report in discussing Road Rights-of-Ways, states: "Disturbance from high volume roads can lead to avoidance 

of otherwise suitable habitat or direct mortality of birds. Minimize the construction of new roads through occupied 

sage-grouse habitat, especially lek, nesting and brood-rearing areas." 

In addition to the statement shown above the ODFW report includes text and mapping associated with what has been 

identified in the report as "Core Areas". The report states that "core areas" are based on biological information with a 

OR Both emc0155GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-738 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

focus on breeding areas. Included on the ODFW habitat maps for the "core areas" they have also mapped areas identified 

as "Low Density". A review of the maps associated with these habitat areas, shows that most of the state transportation 

facilities cross through areas mapped as either "Core Areas" or "Low Density". Text in the report states ODFW would 

recommend "avoidance of impacts to sage-grouse habitat that occur in Core Areas, and mitigation at no net loss with net 

benefit for sage-grouse habitat that occur in Low Density Areas".

Not all Federal, State and County road miles within these 7 counties are located on federal land. In addition, not all 

transportation facilities on federal land pass through identified greater sage-grouse habitat. But with over 8000 miles of 

Federal, State and Local transportation system crisscrossing these 7 counties and with 195 ODOT controlled federal land 

material sources, there is a high probability of conflict here in Oregon between greater sage-grouse habitat management 

and transportation facilities.

233. ODOT is charged with providing a safe, efficient transportation system that supports economic opportunity and livable 

communities for Oregonians. The 195 existing federal land material sites located within the 7 identified counties are critical 

to constructing and maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system. Constructing and maintaining a transportation 

system requires a substantial amount of material when you consider that from the base to the wearing surface, every 

highway is constructed from 90% or more earthen material: soil, unprocessed rock, crushed rock and crushed rock mixed 

with asphalt oil. Material available in these sources is relied upon to provide viable, cost effective sources of high quality 

materials needed for the construction, repair, maintenance and emergency repairs of the highway corridors.

These 195 sources of mineral materials are strategically located along highway corridors and coupled with ODOT owned 

sources, form a network of sites from which ODOT can obtain needed construction materials. Many of these sources are 

located in rural areas where few, if any, other options exist. Many sources in the ODOT network may see very limited 

activity for years between uses, but when projects are planned or when unplanned or emergency work arises, the 

availability of these sources are extremely valuable in keeping overall project costs reasonable and critical for completing 

projects in a timely manner. The fact that a site has not been mined in the last 5 to 10 years or possibly more does not 

mean it is not needed now or in the future.

OR Both emc0155GB

234. If any of the existing 195 sources of material located on federal land and or access to these sites are impacted or lost by the 

development of this sage-grouse management plan, the results could be significant in terms of costs to the public, project 

delays and in some cases may result in a project not being built or at a minimum delayed for years. The identification, 

investigation, environmental clearances and acquisition of an aggregate site is a time consuming and expensive process. It 

can take years of work and cost into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, to open a new site. That is why 

recognizing and protecting existing sites is so important in this planning process.

OR Both emc0155GB

235. In addition to the existing material sources, there will be a need in the future to develop new sources of materials within 

the planning area. Considering the distribution and the number of acres under BLM management, it is likely that some of 

these new sites will be located on federal lands within identified greater sage-grouse habitat.

OR BLM emc0155GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-739

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

236. Garfield County requests a detailed cost-benefit analysis be conducted in evaluating the decision's impact on development 

of fluid minerals, coal mining, hard rock mining, mineral materials, community mineral pits, recreation, off road vehicle use, 

and other land uses. Naturally, this will require evaluation of social and economic benefits/costs of current Sage Grouse 

populations and their impact on resource issues cited above.

UT Both rmc0006GB

237. Permitting of the existing Alton Coal Mine on private land was ill advised and driven by greed. Allowing its expansion is an 

even worse idea and an inappropriate, ill‐use of Public Land. The list of reasons this should not be allowed is extensive and 

includes further reduction of the Greater Sage Grouse breeding grounds. This bird's survival is all ready threatened. Please 

join the Fish and Wildlife Service and The National Park Service in opposition to allowing the mine's expansion on Public 

Lands. Its permitting will effect environmental degredation, habitat reduction and reduce the senic beauty of a visit to Bryce 

Canyon.

UT Both emc0261GB

238. The SG plan seems to presuppose that most SG population decline is due to livestock grazing and mineral extraction. This 

point of view may be based less on science and more on a particular political point of view. There seems to be a difference 

of opinion between" best available science" and the observations of those who live and work on the land.

WY Both rmc0048RM

239. The BLM has control of minerals UNDER many private land parcels in the state. This split estate concept does NOT give 

BLM the constitutional right to assume, require, threaten, or otherwise maintain the federal agency has control over 

management of the private land on the surface. If BLM believes otherwise they need to show where in the Constitution and 

within the Individual State this is an established law. Private property surface rights are separate from minerals rights under 

the soil surface.

WY BLM emc0050RM

240. We furthermore petition the BLM and Forest Service pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) to defer all mineral sales and leasing as 

well as all project-level approvals within the bounds of the more robust Core Area boundaries we have recommended in 

these comments. The BLM has full authority and discretion to undertake this measure under IM 2004-110 Change 1, and 

doing so will preserve the decision space in the Plan Amendment process and prevent permitted actions that could 

undermine the effectiveness of alternative sage grouse Plan Amednment management direction that will be adopted at the 

end of this NEPA process.

WY Both emc0343GB

241. Similarly, uranium and coal strip mining cause 100% habitat loss, while in-situ leaching for uranium results in a tight pattern 

of well pads, roads, and pipelines so dense as to completely destroy habitat effectiveness for sage grouse. These activities 

should also be precluded within 5 miles of leks, although underground mining may be allowable if surface disturbance and 

occupancy are not needed.

WY Both emc0343GB

242. Importantly, the Lost Creek In Situ Recovery uranium project is currently in the permitting process in the Rawlins Field 

Office. Although this project is within a designated Core Area, with a surface density exceeding 50 well sites per square 

mile (far in excess of the one site per square mile limit in the Wyoming Executive Order and the BLM Wyoming Instruction 

Memorandum), the current policy of WGFD (and apparently BLM) is to allow the project to go forward despite the 

noncompliance with Core Area limits under the rationalization that the entire project footprint (apparently approximately 

one square mile within a project area of 4,400 acres) is one site. This absurd conclusion appears designed to evade the 

Core Area restrictions on development, which are intended to prevent levels of industrialization that are incompatible 

with sage grouse retention. The end result, if approved, will be to demonstrate that the Core Area protections are not 

WY BLM emc0343GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-740 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.B

Comments Related to Minerals and Mining

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

being applied in cases where clearly incompatible projects are proposed within Core Areas, undermining the credibility of 

the Core Area concept as an adequate conservation measure for ESA review purposes.

243. It is also of great concern that areas with impending oil and gas leases in Wyoming were often purposefully excluded from 

Core Area mapping. Oil and gas, geothermal leases, and wind and other rights-of-way are being gobbled up by industry and 

speculators across the West – including in areas that to date have had very little oil and gas or other energy development.

Agencies must provide a map of all existing leases/rights-of-way – so the public and decision makers can understand the 

very large numbers of these leases that are held. Agencies must also provide detailed maps of additional areas where 

leasing is foreseeable. The same most be done for mining. This is necessary to understand the huge number of leases and 

claims that currently exist. In many areas of Nevada, for example, there is hardly an acre that does not have mine claims, 

and increasingly does not have geothermal or oil and gas leases. And we wonder - can multiple kinds of leases occur, one 

on top of another, in the same landscapes?

WY Both emc0411GB

244. I am a wildlife biologist that has collaborated with BLM and USFS, and landowner associations in a radio 

objectifying habitat use of Greater Sage 

historical and active leks in Wyoming.

WY Both fla0079gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-741

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

1. I believe that all degrading land uses in sage-grouse habitat must be addressed in the conservation plan, including energy 

development and livestock grazing.

All Both rmc0020GB; 

rmc0004RM

2. There is strong evidence from the scientific literature to support the fact that surface-disturbing energy or mineral 

development within sage-grouse habitats is not consistent with a goal to maintain or increase populations or distribution. 

None of the published science describes a positive influence of this type of development on sage-grouse populations or 

their habitats. Breeding populations are reduced severely at well pad densities commonly permitted by the BLM. The 

magnitude of losses varies from one field to another, but findings suggest that impacts are universally negative and typically 

severe.

All Both emc0074GB

3. Recommendation #7 - We recommend that the conservation strategy most likely to meet the objective of maintaining or 

increasing sage-grouse distribution and abundance is to exclude energy development and other large-scale disturbances 

from priority sage grouse (core) habitats, and where valid existing rights exist, we recommend that impacts from these 

developments be minimized by keeping disturbances to 1 per section or less, with direct surface-disturbance impacts held 

to 3% of the area or less,

All Both emc0074GB

4. Conservation measures for the oil and gas industry should not be applied to the mining or geothermal industry. All 

measures proposed need to be practical, feasible, economical, and affordable.

All Both rmc0035GB

5. Exempt mining activities on lands where the mining disturbance is below the land surface from sage grouse restrictions. All Both rmc0004GB

6. It also, leads to deferred energy exploration, moratoriums on renewable energy generators, transmission lines as well as 

maintenance access.

All Both rmc0047GB, 

rmc0013rm

7. The DEIS should discuss in detail approaches to conserving populations and habitats facing right-of-way projects like new 

power lines and energy generation facilities, including potential requirement for both on-and offsite mitigation. Baseline 

monitoring and research are needed to properly site projects, determine actual wildlife impacts and to appropriately design 

and implement effective mitigation. Post construction monitoring and research need to follow projects to determine actual 

total impacts, as well as the effectiveness of mitigation.

All Both rmc0028GB

8. Implementation of the proposed action and the possible consequences to an early stage exploration or mining project, or 

one with a large current landholding that is in the queue for future evaluation, needs to be fully identified and analyzed in the 

EIS. Implementation of the proposed action and possible impacts to future prospects that naturally evolve as geologic 

models and technology advances needs to be fully identified and analyzed in the EIS.

All Both rmc0029GB

9. Another one I have been thinking about is a cumulative impact arising from mineral development and grazing. Oil and gas 

development has impacted large areas of grouse habitat. Just the surface disturbance, conversion of sagebrush community 

to bare ground of roads, pads, etc. is in the 10s of thousands of acres, just in Utah.

All Both emc0197GB

10. We need to have access to our natural resources. The problem is not drilling. The problem is predators - coyotes -

wolves - crows - foxes.

All Both cfc0063GB

11. Greater Sage-grouse habitat should be protected from energy development and livestock grazing. Energy development will 

fragment habitat. Greater Sage-grouse have also been shown to give wide berth to energy facilities and associate roadways, 

which further limits suitable habitat. Tall structures also provide perches for nest predators.

All Both emc0068GB, 

emc0020rm
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-742 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

12. Mitigation for major energy developments and other projects that end up in sage grouse habitat must account for the full 

direct and indirect impacts. The agencies must recognize and account for the fact that the indirect effects such as 

fragmentation, edge effects, and displacement effects can be much more significant than the direct foot-print effects of such 

developments.

All Both emc0078GB

13. Try to institutionalize an energy development schedule on a sustained yield of adequate sage grouse habitat basis, that is, 

over a biologically realistic time period.

All Both emc0092GB

14. The EIS and alternatives must consider the specific and unique impacts to geothermal development. It is not appropriate to 

include geothermal development under the general oil and gas development category

All Both emc0310GB

15. Leasable Minerals The IM gives Field Offices the discretion to not move forward with a nomination or to defer making a 

decision on Fluid Mineral leasing until the completion of the LUP process for the affected area. We believe that giving the 

Field Offices this discretion will result in the postponement of geothermal leasing until after the National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy process is complete in 2014, regardless of whether PGH or PPH is contained in the 

nominated parcels. This outcome has the potential to stall geothermal energy development for up to three years. 

Authorizations on Existing Leases In the all other Proposed Authorizations section, the IM suggests suspending 

non-producing leases in instances where mitigation would not adequately protect the integrity of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. We feel that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the adequacy of mitigation for actions which have not yet 

been fully defined or analyzed through a NEPA process. Suspending such leases would deprive leaseholders of the potential 

benefits of continuing development without compensating them for the value invested obtaining or exploring the leases.

All Both emc0108GB

16. Interim Conservation Measures and Policies for Preliminary General Habitat The IM recommends consideration of 

alternatives that would increase buffer distances around active leks and timing restrictions within existing LUPs as needed 

to further reduce adverse effects on Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. We feel that agencies must apply known science 

in determining buffer distances around active leks and when establishing timing restrictions. It is our opinion that there is

significant variability in the standards that have been applied in the past. The IM recommends deferring authorizations in 

PGH, where appropriate, if authorizations could result in Greater Sage-Grouse population loss in PPH. We feel that 

excessive emphasis has been placed on deferring authorizations, and inadequate emphasis has been placed on onsite and 

offsite mitigation, in both PGH and PPH, to improve the overall habitat.

All Both emc0108GB

17. Fluid Minerals The NTT Report uses studies that were based on oil and gas development and applies the findings to 

geothermal development, as well. While research on oil and gas projects is relevant to understanding how geothermal 

development may impact sage-grouse, key differences in development density, size, and operation mean that the impacts 

documented thus far are likely not generalizable to geothermal. Despite the incongruity of the available data to the typical 

geothermal development, the NTT report recommends the closure of PPH to fluid mineral leasing with only limited 

exceptions for checkerboard or split estate parcels. Without access to the PPH and PGH maps, the geothermal industry 

can only speculate that the team’s recommendations would spell the end of any future lease acquisition in a broad swath of 

northern Nevada and southern Idaho. The NTT report further recommends prohibition of new surface occupancy on 

existing fluid mineral leases in PPH with unreasonable exceptions of 4-mile radius NSO buffers around leks, and only one 

permitted disturbance per section (640 acres) of land. We feel that these restrictions would deprive leaseholders of the 

All Both emc0108GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-743

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

potential benefits of continuing development without compensating them for the value invested obtaining or exploring the 

leases. Furthermore, the no new surface occupancy (NSO) conservation measure, with the exceptions noted, render all of 

the other proposed conservation measures moot; these activities would not be allowed in an NSO condition. For example, 

applying seasonal restrictions to exploratory drilling does not mean that the NSO is waived, outside of the seasonal 

restriction period, if the underlying NSO is still in effect

18. We strongly support adherence to the complete mitigation hierarchy in any RMP area that contains energy resources. The 

mitigation hierarchy is a step-by-step process of first avoiding the most sensitive areas (e.g. no development in priority 

areas), then minimizing, moderating or reducing adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable (typically through the 

application of best management practices), then restoring, repairing or rescuing (e.g. re-vegetating roads after use) 

adversely impacted areas and species to the maximum extent practicable, and finally compensating for residual and 

cumulative impacts through onsite or offsite habitat protection, management or restoration (e.g. protection or restoration 

of priority habitats within the development or on a nearby site). Unfortunately, energy mitigation in general, and in 

association with BLM lands, too often stops with avoidance, minimization, and repair, thereby truncating the mitigation 

hierarchy.

All Both emc0109GB, 

emc0035RM

19. Failure to adhere to and implement the complete mitigation hierarchy misses the significant opportunity to provide net 

benefit to the GSG. Under the best-case scenario, avoidance, minimization and repair alone will result in no change to the 

baseline conditions (e.g., extent and quality of habitat). However, best-case scenarios are rarely, if ever achieved and limiting 

mitigation to avoidance, minimization and repair will typically result in a net reduction in baseline conditions. In other 

words, avoidance and minimization and repair alone will only slow the decline of the GSG; it will never contribute to 

improving the status of the GSG.

All Both emc0109GB, 

emc0035RM

20. It is essential that implementation of the complete mitigation hierarchy become a required component of all RMPs with 

energy development, and a condition of RMP approval. Instruction memorandum No. 2008-204 outlines the BLM’s policy 

for offsite compensatory mitigation and is generally consistent with the mitigation hierarchy. However, a fundamental 

problem with its language is that it states that “offsite mitigation can only be used when the BLM can demonstrate that the 

proposed mitigation is reasonably necessary to accomplish an authorized BLM purpose... and particularly when it occurs 

on non-Federal land, the connection to resources for which the BLM is responsible should be clear.” We argue that since 

the overall goal is to recover the species and prevent listing, compensatory offsets (whether on federal or non-federal land) 

should always be necessary as part of any RMP. We also suggest that offsite mitigation, if it occurs within a landscape used 

by the same GSG population that is being impacted, be considered “connected to the resources that BLM is responsible 

for.” Furthermore, this connection should be established as part of the RMP process. Clarification on this issue might 

encourage more local BLM officials to implement the policy.

All Both emc0109GB, 

emc0035RM

21. We support the use of the following conservation recommendations of the Sage Grouse National Technical Team (NTT, 

2011 Report) as elements of the complete mitigation hierarchy and as a condition for RMP approval: Avoidance – Exclude 

energy development and other large scale disturbances from priority habitats (pg. 21). Adhere to un-leased Federal Fluid 

Mineral Estate conservation measures, Alternative A (pg. 22). Increase the No Surface Occupancy buffer around leks to 4 

miles (pg. 20). Minimize, reduce, moderate – Where valid rights currently exist, limit disturbances to one per section (640 

All Both emc0109GB, 

emc0035RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-744 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

acres), with direct impacts held to 3% of thearea or less (pg. 21). Adhere to best management practices in Appendices B, C, 

and D. Repair, reinstate, and restore – Adhere to best management practices in Appendices B, C, and D. Compensatory 

offsets – Develop standards for offsets (see below) of residual direct and cumulative impacts and require their use as part 

of all RMPs in the GSG range. Offsets of residual impacts should be required regardless of where the energy project occurs 

(both within and outside of priority areas). Offset activities should include a wide range of activities from permanent land 

protection, to temporary measures to improve habitat above baseline conditions, to re-vegetation of roads, and removal 

and burial of fences, power lines and other structures.

22. Unfortunately, the BLM has no compensatory offset standards for GSG. Completed mitigation projects (e.g. Jonah Field and 

Pinedale Anticline mitigation programs) have been implemented without accurate accounting of residual energy project 

impacts or compensatory offsets. It is essential that the BLM work collaboratively with scientists, State Wildlife Agencies, 

non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to develop metrics that quantify units of adverse habitat impact 

that result from project development, as well as habitat improvements that result from conservation actions (i.e., offsets). 

Metrics would help establish a rigorous and consistently applied standard for offsets throughout the range of the GSG, 

thereby improving fairness to energy developers and taxpayers, transparency, and environmental performance. Metrics are 

in-situ measurement tools that should be used in coordination with other planning tools that identify high priority 

conservation areas.

All Both emc0109GB, 

emc0035RM

23. The BLM could further improve mitigation for energy impacts if it allowed energy companies operating on federal lands to 

purchase mitigation credits (measured using metrics described above and acquired on federal or non-federal lands) prior to 

the installation of the development, and if those credits were purchased as part of a regional, market-based credit system 

similar to programmatic conservation banking. Market-based credit trading systems can maximize the conservation benefits 

and costeffectiveness of mitigation investments, and are more transparent, fair, time-efficient, and politically expedient than 

current mitigation processes.

All Both emc0109GB, 

emc0035RM

24. To provide substantive motivation for the energy companies and private landowners to participate in credits trading prior 

to listing, the BLM must work collaboratively with the FWS and other to establish guidelines for “candidate species 

conservation banking” with assurances.

All Both emc0109GB, 

emc0035RM

25. IV. BLM Should Clarify how the Bi‐State Population Will Be Addressed BLM states that the scope of the proposed EISs will 

cover the range of the greater sage‐grouse with the exception of the bi‐state population in California and Nevada and the 

Washington State distinct population segment.15 According to BLM, both of these populations will be addressed through 

other planning efforts, but BLM does not explain what these efforts will be. The bi‐state population in California and Nevada 

is of particular interest to SEIA and its members because of those states’ potential for utility‐scale solar development. SEIA 

requests that BLM clarify how this bi‐state population will be evaluated and how SEIA and other stakeholders can 

participate in that process.

All Both emc0110GB

26. We believe that incorporating the interests of electric utilities specifically, and the utility industry in general, is crucial to the 

stated objective of maintaining a sage grouse population sufficiently robust to eliminate the needed for listing.

All Both emc0396GB

27. We respectfully request that structures, such as power lines, that are currently in use and which have long been in place 

under valid permits be "grandfathered in" or exempted from changes to greater sage-grouse management plans. We offer 

All Both emc0396GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-745

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

qualified support for mitigation measures which will demonstrably improve habitat or species success. The relative benefits 

of mitigation measures must be carefully balanced against the negative impacts which will occur during the installation of 

those measures. Marking and raptor perching prevention are far superior to the impacts of relocating or removing existing 

overhead power lines and to the impacts of converting to underground power lines. Most of our distribution and 

transmission lines cross through these areas of habitat due to the very large percentages offederalland in Idaho, Utah and 

Nevada. It is nearly impossible to route lines for electrical service completely away from sage grouse habitat and still serve 

the needs of the greater Mountain West area for electrical energy.

28. NV Energy is concerned that the renewal of existing right of way grants or special use permits for those transmission and 

distribution facilities within preliminary priority sage grouse habitat may require significant permitting and mitigation 

requirements including additional NEPA analysis; undergrounding of existing facilities; relocation of transmission and/or 

distribution corridors; etc. It is the opinion ofNV Energy that these potential mitigation requirements could create greater 

disturbances and have a more negative effect than what exists presently. Therefore, NV Energy requests that proposed 

mitigation for existing transmission and distribution infrastructure be analyzed in the EIS. It should be noted mitigation 

measures including, but not limited to, the relocation of existing electrical infrastructure would directly impact Nevada rate 

payers.

All Both emc0198GB

29. While we agree that BLM should work with applicants to identify technically feasible best management practices (BMPs) to 

eliminate or minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse, the BMPs must be both technically and financially feasible. Burying of 

power lines, at a cost of 4 to 10 times the cost of an overhead line, is seldom financially feasible. In addition, undergrounding 

of extra-high voltage power lines, such as the 600 kV 13,000 MW TWE Project, is not technically feasible. The technology 

to bury 600 kV lines is not presently available nor is it likely to become available within the time frame for construction of 

the TWE Project. While there are theoretical and laboratory experiments in place that could conceivably be applied to the 

voltage and capacity levels of the TWE Project, there are no AC or DC underground installations worldwide above 500 kV 

or 2,000 MW either in-service or planned to be in-service in the next decade.

All Both emc0399GB

30. In Nevada, economics takes precedence over protection of the sage grouse and its environment. The Nevada BLM 

authorizes mining, geothermal development, power lines, windmills, and energy corridors with only a cursory notification 

to the Shoshone. These projects damage the land and leks, and the waste materials from these projects poisons the birds. 

Sage hen and other wildlife drink water contaminated by methylmercury, cyanide, and other chemicals and solvents from 

the gold mines. Lithium, uranium, and molybdenum mines have come to the area with their pollutants.

All Both emc0170GB

31. AdditionaIly, the BLM must analyze impacts to mineral and energy resources as if the lands were open to development 

under standard lease agreements.

All Both emc0337GB

32. Significant sage grouse habitat overlaps with BLM special designations. The plan amendment process must include a 

No-Action alternative, which recognizes the fact that federal land use plans contain existing direct and indirect protections 

of sage-grouse habitat (including wilderness areas, national parks and monuments, wilderness study areas, areas of critical 

environmental concern, special recreation management areas, roadless areas, wild and scenic rivers, NSO areas and 

others). The EIS must examine the extent to which such existing protections, or modification of such protections, can 

accomplish the purpose and need for the plan amendments.

All Both emc0242GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-746 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

33. The technical team report (see Page 21) seems to ignore valid existing rights by recommending that, even in leased energy 

development areas, that surface disturbances be limited to one per section; not to exceed 3% of the area or less. This 

recommendation is unrealistic as is the recommendation for a 4-mile radius buffer around leks.

All Both emc0242GB

34. Access to fluid and hard rock minerals on BLM and Forest land must be maintained and valid lease rights must be 

acknowledged and protected.

All Both emc0242GB

35. I would prefer that the Department of Interior peruse other avenues of protecting wildlife instead of random leasing 

restrictions that will have little impact on the population of the species of interest

All Both emc0245GB, 

emc0099RM

36. BLM should put the following management prescriptions in place for L WCs at a minimum: ROW exclusion (such as electric 

transmission and fluid mineral pipelines); and

All Both emc0234GB

37. In a recent book edited by S. T. Knick and J. W Conmelly on Sage-Grouse research it was stated that most attempts to 

restore sagebrush habitats have been unsuccessful. In fact a noted grouse expert, Dr. Clait E. Braun, stated, "I know of no 

areas where Sage-Grouse have re-established their distribution over significant areas of former habitat," (The Wilson 

Journal of Ornithology, Vol. 123, p 655). What this effort will require will be for you to put Sage-Grouse management 

above all other uses on public lands. This means that grazing of livestock and fences should be eliminated in core 

Sage-Grouse areas. All types of land fragmentation, such as roads, power lines, wind farms, oil and gas drilling, etc. will have 

to be secondary to the management of Sage-Grouse. I do not have much faith that your agencies will be capable of such a 

drastic turn-around. In fact, BLM planned to study ecological trends in much of the 260 million acre of the West’s grazing 

allotments, but told the scientists not to consider livestock grazing, due to "anxiety from stakeholders." Such attitudes will 

absolutely have to change if there is any hope to save Sage-Grouse and their habitat. The only real solution that I see is 

buying out willing ranchers who graze in core Sage-Grouse areas. As said, both your agencies will have to put the grouse 

first.

All Both emc0021RM

38. We applaud the BLM’s focus on energy development as a key threat to the health and persistence of greater sage-grouse 

populations in the Eastern Region of its range. The Keystone XL pipeline, while currently in an indeterminate state 

legislatively, is proposed to bisect core areas of sage-grouse habitat, which have been identified and recognized by the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service in Montana, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and other partner agencies. These 

core areas delineate landscapes encompassing habitat for 75% of all known breeding sage-grouse and are vitally important 

to the health and persistence of sage grouse populations.

All Both emc0034RM

39. Avoidance of small and large above ground structures on the landscape by greater sage-grouse is well documented. Buried 

pipelines present a unique set of challenges because they consist of three main types of structures: 1) the pipeline; 2) pump 

stations and associated roads; and 3) overhead power lines. Pump stations are permanent aboveground structures that 

require 5-10 acres and are constructed at approximately 48-50 mile intervals. Pump stations require road construction, 

which greater sage-grouse will avoid, and overhead power lines, which are likely to increase the number of aerial predators 

in greater sage-grouse habitat by providing perching areas.

All Both emc0034RM

40. WWF believes that areas that have been defined as sage-grouse ‘core areas’ should be areas of no disruption by energy 

development because they have been recognized as critical in current efforts on both public and private lands to prevent 

listing of the species. Private landowners engaged in efforts to conserve sage-grouse and prevent listing have expressed 

All Both emc0034RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-747

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

difficulty understanding why they should do so if their efforts will be undone by poor energy development practices and 

regulation on public lands.

41. The petition for listing the Greater Sage Grouse as an endangered species specifically targets two important western 

industries in particular. The energy industry, and the agricultural industry. Both of these industries are vitally important to 

the economy of our western states and vitally important to our small local economies as well. This fact cannot be 

emphasized enough. While both of these industries bear responsibility to manage their operations to provide for 

conservation of natural resources, we maintain that these industries have demonstrated that they are doing so. The 

regulatory environment in which these industries exist must retain flexibility in order for these industries to survive. The 

regulatory environment must also allow industry leaders and federal agencies the flexibility to develop adaptive 

management strategies to achieve the appropriate balance between the increasing demand for resources and conservation 

objectives.

All Both emc0032RM

42. Consider establishing and analyzing one or more pilot projects within existing but undeveloped leases about to undergo 

development. Specifically, as much as technically possible, situate all post-drilling structures below grade, including well 

trees, pumps, and other facilities. In some cases it would be necessary to excavate pits to place structures below grade. 

Proposed pilot locations and analyses would be presented in the EISs. Although increased costs of production would likely 

seem to be an issue, it does not seem insurmountable because it would be a one-time expense. A significant amount of 

energy production equipment at Canadian Forces Base Suffield, Alberta (the largest Canadian military training facility) is 

completely underground, an arrangement that apparently works well, without compromising the military mission or raising 

havoc with the buried equipment. The following paragraph is taken from a November 2005 environmental fact sheet 

produced by EnCana, in conjunction with its CFB Suffield operations: ! "In addition to its use as a military centre, and as a 

major gas and oil producing area, CFB Suffield lands are used for cattle grazing. Close cooperation and communication 

between EnCana, the DND and local ranchers have allowed this unique shared land arrangement to work for the benefit of 

all parties. On the active military range, EnCana has located more than 7,000 gas and oil wells, most of which are 

underground so that they do not impede military activities. Stringent security protocols are in effect for access to CFB 

Suffield (including the National Wildlife Area) which is off limits to the public." (emphasis added) It is difficult to imagine that 

EnCana would incur the additional expenses in burying gas and oil wells if it were not cost effective.

All Both emc0113GB

43. The sage grouse population is NOT impacted by grazing, current roads, or energy factors. (I never saw a cow kill a grouse). All Both emc0052RM

44. With regards to transmission lines, pipelines, and mines, the same rules apply as do for oil and gas development, road 

development, and other leasing development. Referencing my previous number of no more than five total sites of 

development with a 5.5 radius of a lek, regardless of its activity, all considerations for transmission lines, pipelines, and mines 

will be included in this total of five.

All BLM emc0074RM

45. One of the most effective management tools is suspension of road and ATV trail proliferation in the sage sea. This action 

alone would severely restrict the potential for new development of fossil, solar, and wind energy, all of which may have 

serious negative impacts on sage grouse. Stop the roads, stop the invasion of the sage sea. Then, when better habitat 

information is available, allow construction that is minimally invasive and located in minimum impact areas. There are other 

All Both emc0083RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-748 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

places to extract or generate energy, but sage grouse grow only here.

46. I oppose more drilling in the sage grouse habitat areas. All Both emc0102RM

47. Recent greater sage-grouse studies also demonstrate that energy development and viable sage-grouse populations can 

successfully co-exist when reasonable mitigation measures are utilized during exploration, development and production. 

Suggestions that oil and gas activities are extremely harmful to populations and habitat are overstated. Given that the 

energy industry is committed not only to studying ways to ameliorate impacts, but also to utilizing identified measures, we 

urge the BLM to recognize the protections already in place.

All Both emc0116GB, 

emc0033RM

48. Energy development includes traditional energy sources (oil, gas, coal, coaled methane) and rapidly expanding renewable 

energy development (wind) and the associated transmission lines. Protections to sage-grouse need to be balanced with the 

need to produce energy. The following suggestions should be considered in each alternative: • Energy development should 

be recommended in areas with low conflict with greater sage-grouse. • Wind projects need to be held to the same standard 

as traditional energy sources. • Transmission lines need to be held to the same standard as traditional energy sources. • No 

exceptions should be made in the core area including transmission corridors • New development or land uses should not 

be authorized in core areas

All Both emc0128RM

49. Temporary protections for areas that have not yet been leased for energy development. These lands can be opened to 

development once other areas have been successfully reclaimed and capable of supporting and increasing sage-grouse 

populations. USFWS, WGFD, sage-grouse working groups, BLM, and USFS will need to sign-off on the area and without this 

sign-off the temporary protections will not be lifted. O IM WY 2010-013 (BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Screen for Sage 

Grouse) recognizes 11 contiguous square miles as appropriate minimum size to qualify for being set aside from 

development.

All Both emc0128RM

50. The BLM’s list of issues is incomplete. Connelly et al. (2011: 555-556, Tables 24.1, 24.2) reviewed literature and listed 

additional threats to sage-grouse that likely exist on federal land, including conifer encroachment, West Nile virus, seeded 

grassland, fences, power lines, vegetation treatments, roads, and reservoirs. It is unclear if BLM and USFS will address 

conifer encroachment/expansion, West Nile virus, seeded grassland and vegetation treatments as part of “Greater 

Sage-grouse habitat management.” The NTT report also listed a few additional threats that degrade or fragment habitat or 

affect sage-grouse, including geothermal energy development, landfills, and residential development (SGNTT 2011: 8). The 

agencies should address all of these factors in the planning process

All Both emc0391GB

51. As the United States transitions from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, there will likely be a need for additional 

long-distance transmission lines. For example, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality Interagency Rapid 

Response Transmission Team (RRTT), formed in 2011, has identified five priority transmission lines in the West, and two

in the East. These lines are planned to promote the development of remotely constrained renewable resources, mostly 

wind development. Of the five projects included in the West—SunZia, Cascade Crossing, Boardman to Hemingway, 

Gateway West, and TransWest Express—four cross sagebrush habitat identified by Doherty et al. (2010b) as having the 

highest densities of breeding sage-grouse. Early consideration of routes for these transmission lines and plans for expansion 

of remote, renewable resources can aid in reducing conflicts between transmission infrastructure and sagegrouse. The 

All Both emc0391GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-749

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

sage-grouse planning process should provide key information and prescribe conservation measures for current and future 

transmission planning in sage-grouse habitat. Iterative transmission planning efforts are underway at the state and regional 

level. The primary clearing house for transmission expansion planning across areas identified as sage-grouse habitat is the 

Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC). WECC included environmental data in its Transmission Expansion 

Planning process, and WECC’s Scenario Planning Working Group Environmental Data Task Force (EDTF) was tasked with 

building a decision support tool to allow for a comparison of future transmission alternatives through the lens of 

environmental and cultural data sets. These data sets provide transmission planners with a method by which to show the 

relative ‘risk’ to a project developer of trying to develop a particular route. Lands were screened and classified under four 

tiers of suitability resulting in risk determinations dependent upon resources, such as lands with dense sage-grouse 

populations. The EDTF will continue to conduct regular outreach to stakeholders across the West to update, collect and 

integrate additional environmental and cultural data into this decision support tool for use by regional transmission 

planners. Within this framework, information regarding Greater Sage-grouse habitat protection can and should flow two 

ways. BLM and USFS sage-grouse conservation planning efforts provide an opportunity to incorporate planning for 

renewable energy generation and transmission expansion based on long-term and west-wide modeling of existing and 

future renewable energy goals and reliability constraints. Conversely, the agencies should ensure that transmission planning 

efforts underway at WECC have incorporated new sage-grouse conservation efforts into future scenario planning through 

EDTF tools.

52. Samson is very concerned that the conservation measures ultimately Imposed by BLM will result in the violation of valid 

existing lease rights that could lead to legal actions taken by leaseholders to protect those rights. While the Interim 

Guidance 1M includes some language regarding the application of restrictions that are consistent with valid existing lease 

terms, we are concerned that subsequent actions made by BLM under the IM could prevent operators from developing 

their valid existing lease rights. BLM should respect valid existing rights and provide ample flexibility during the planning 

process to enable projects that adequately mitigate and minimize adverse impacts to GSG. Further, BLM should not impose 

conservation measures or restrictions that would provide the same or greater restrictions on activities that would be 

applied under the Endangered Species Act, at the expense of valid existing lease rights.

All BLM emc0246GB

53. For example, BLM may impose NSO restrictions on active leases or require certain BMPs as Conditions of Approval 

(COAs) for permits within priority habitats. BLM cannot legally impose new NSO stipulations or COAs on existing leases 

rights that differ from those entered under the original contractual terms.

All BLM emc0246GB

54. Federal agencies cannot impose stipulations or conditions of approval that make development on existing leases either 

uneconomic or unprofitable contrary to "valid existing rights." See Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp. 995, 1011 (D. Utah 1979). 

BLM cannot prohibit lessees from developing their leases and any RMP amendment must speCifically make this declaration 

In support of valid existing rights. See, e.g. National Wildlife Federation, 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999). Based upon the above 

legal requirements of FLPMA, BLM cannot approve management prescriptions that may impair, block access to, render 

uneconomic, or otherwise cause waste or unduly impact existing federal oil and gas leases.

All BLM emc0246GB

55. The Report recommends that BLM close priority sage-grouse habitats to future leasing, except in areas that are not entirely 

federally owned. A decision to discontinue leasing in all preliminary priority habitats (PPH) areas that are not entirely 

All Both emc0246GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-750 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

federally owned would unreasonably block access to Significant energy resources on thousands of acres of public lands, 

potentially force operators to abandon projects outside of PPH areas if they are unable to lease adjacent or nearby parcels 

within those areas, and deprive state and federal coffers of significant revenue from leasing and the subsequent development 

of those leases.

56. Through the Interim Guidance 1M, proposed leasing decisions may be forwarded to the appropriate State Director, NTT, 

or even the BlM Director in Washington. We are concerned that future leasing in and around GSG habitat could be 

unreasonably delayed, or not occur at all, due to the bureaucratic decision-making process outlined in the IM.

All Both emc0246GB

57. BLM field offices may also need additional resources to Institute the management policies set forth in the Interim Guidance 

IM and the RMP amendments. Speciflcally, BlM field offices may require additional staff with relevant expertise to administer

new greater sage-grouse management requirements for individual projects, such as developing polygons for density 

restrictions within priority habitat areas. Additionally, BLM must ensure that the preparation of the EIS and subsequent 

RMP amendments does not prevent BlM field office employees from regularly processing NEPA documents, Applications 

for Permits to Drill (APD), and sundry notices in a timely manner. The administrative efficiency of BlM field offices is directly 

related to industry's ability to provide affordable energy resources from public lands across the West.

All BLM emc0246GB

58. Based on the restrictions outlined In the Interim Guidance IM and the Report, we are concerned that BLM may ultimately 

violate Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires federal land management agencies to ensure that the 

least restrictive stipulations are utilized to protect resource values and valid existing rights. Accordingly, we recommend 

that BLM adhere to the law and apply the least restrictive stipulation from the alternatives in the EISs and SEISs.

All BLM emc0246GB

59. Samson asks that the BLM refrain from including and evaluating the Citizen's Proposed Wilderness Areas (CPWA) as 

wilderness for GSG habitat protection as they have not been designated by Congress as such at this time. Many of these 

CWPA's have active 011 and gas leases and associated exploration and production activities at this time. Acknowledging 

any type of wilderness deSignation within the RMP amendment process for the further protection of the GSG would not be 

appropriate for inclusion In any of the EIS alternatives. The focus should be kept on the GSG and should not provide an 

opportunity to further advance the protection of the CPWA's within the RMP amendments until Congress acts on these 

proposed designations.

All BLM emc0246GB

60. Balancing the development of natural gas and oil resources with the protection of local populations of greater sagegrouse 

and their habitat in the planning areas will provide significant benefits to local communities, the state, and the nation. 

Samson looks forward to working cooperatively with the BLM and other stakeholders in this planning effort to ensure the 

balanced use of the resources across the West.

All Both emc0246GB

61. Any new conservation measures should allow for va ryi ng degrees of impact within lhe PPH areas. The third bullet on Page 

23 of 74 of the NTT Conservation Measures document addresses this issue as it pertains to Leased Federal Fluid Mineral 

Estate . The conservation measure stales " ... Any development to be placed at the most distal part of the lease from Ihe lek, 

or, depending on lopography and other habitat aspects, in an area that is less demonstratably harmful to sagegrouse." While 

an absolute requirement that sage-grouse preservation should trump all other siting considerations is obviously not 

palatable, the concept of considering the distance and terrain between disturbance and the sage-grouse habitat to be 

protected is very appropriate. As the distance increases from a known breeding location or complex of locations, increased 

All Both emc0278GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-751

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

levels of disturbance should be allowed. For example, roads that intercept the edge of a PPH should be available for use 

during the breeding season. Impacts from this level of disturbance would be minimal and still allow for projects to move 

forward.

62. The IM states that Special Recreation Permits may be "canceled as appropriate to avoid or minimize habitat aIterations or 

other physical disturbances to Greater Sage-Grouse ." EI Paso has concerns that if these permits can be canceled, that the 

policy may be further extended into other Special Use Permits that are required for project implementation. This needs to 

be clarified .

All Both emc0278GB

63. Non-renewable energy development is one of the most significant factors affecting sage-grouse populations and habitats 

today. Non-renewable energy development includes exploration and drilling for oil, gas, and coal-bed methane, and 

associated activities including road construction and use, seismic surveys, pipeline corridors, and powerlines. Such activities 

can result in direct habitat loss, fragmentation of important habitat, noise disturbance, and direct mortality to sagegrouse.

Indirect effects may also include gaseous emissions, changes in water availability and quality, and human presence. The 

amount of direct habitat loss from the footprint of the activity—attributable generally to well pads, roads, pipelines, 

powerlines, and crushing of vegetation during seismic surveys—ultimately depends upon well densities and associated 

losses from ancillary facilities. Impacts are often felt well beyond the life of the activity, whereas roads associated with 

energy development are often used even after the termination of drilling and production.

All Both emc0276GB

64. 6. The BLM and Forest Service Should Manage Sage-Grouse Conservation as the Top Priority in Priority Sage-grouse 

Habitat. In order to ensure the persistence of sage-grouse across the West, the BLM and Forest Service must commit to 

managing sage-grouse as the top priority in priority sage-grouse habitat. This means that conservation of sage-grouse in 

these areas must be elevated among other land use management activities, and the agencies should ensure that all projects 

and activities do not go forward in a way that could potentially harm sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat. The National 

Technical Team suggests managing priority areas so that at least 70% of the land cover provides adequate sagebrush 

habitat,17 but this does not go far enough. Because protection of this priority habitat is necessary for sage-grouse survival 

and persistence, the agencies should aim to protect all sagebrush across identified priority habitat. As it is evident that many 

of the activities described above as threats can seriously harm sage-grouse populations, the agencies should prohibit some 

of these most damaging activities in priority sage-grouse habitats and approach management of other threats in a manner 

that is consistent with sage-grouse and habitat protection. The agencies should not allow any new oil, gas, coal, or other 

mineral leases in priority sagegrouse habitats that are currently unleased. As the Technical Team Report states, There is 

strong evidence from the literature to support that surface-disturbing energy or mineral development within priority 

sage-grouse habitats is not consistent with a goal to maintain or increase populations or distribution.”18 As described 

above, energy development is one of the most significant factors negatively impacting sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat 

today. Energy development generally includes or leads to direct conversion of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, increased 

human presence, increased threat of predators, an increase in noise, pollutants, and potential harm to water resources. 

Additionally, cumulative impacts from energy development in connection with other activities, including the infrastructure 

associated with the development, create threats to sage-grouse that are incalculable. See infra Sections III.A & D for more 

information on the threats associated with energy development and mining. The Technical Team Report notes that No 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-752 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Surface Occupancy buffers around leks will be ineffective in protecting sage grouse: Past BLM conservation measures have 

focused on 0.25 mile No Surface Occupancy (NSO) buffers around leks, and timing stipulations applied to 0.6 mile buffers 

around leks to protect both breeding and nesting activities. Given impacts of large scale disturbances described above that 

occur across seasons and impact all demographic rates, applying NSO or other buffers around leks at any distance is 

unlikely to be effective. Even if this approach were to be continued, it should be noted that protecting even 75 to >80% of 

nesting hens would require a 4-mile radius buffer . . . . Even a 4-mile NSO buffer would not be large enough to offset all the 

impacts reviewed above. A 4-mile NSO likely would not be practical given most leases are not large enough to 

accommodate a buffer of this size, and lek spacing within priority habitats is such that lek-based buffers may overlap and 

preclude all development.19 Buffers will not be effective enough to offset impacts and buffers of a substantial size would 

preclude development anyway. Furthermore, timing restrictions are ineffective because they do not prevent impacts of 

infrastructure at other times of year or during seasonal habitats that are crucial for population persistence. Thus, based on

the science, the Technical Team Report recommend[s] excluding mineral development and other large scale disturbances 

from priority habitats where possible, and where it is not limit disturbance as much as possible. It concludes: We believe the 

conservation strategy most likely to meet the objectives of maintaining or increasing sage-grouse distribution and 

abundance is to exclude energy development and other large scale disturbances from priority habitats, and where valid 

existing rights exist, minimize those impacts by keeping disturbances to 1 per section with direct surface disturbance 

impacts held to 3% of the area or less.22 We support this recommendation and note that the only locations where 

prohibiting development may not be possible are where valid existing rights remain. In areas where 3% impact is permitted, 

we advise the BLM to define the “area” so that it is small enough for this to make an appreciable impact on protection of 

sage-grouse and habitat. Both alternatives offered by the Technical Team Report with respect to unleased federal fluid 

mineral estate, however, allow for exceptions for exploration, leasing, and/or development within priority habitat.23 We 

do not believe that such exceptions should be made within priority habitat. Additionally, proposing helicopter-portable 

drilling methods does not alleviate the noise and thus potential avoidance of sage-grouse that often comes with drilling, and 

thus should not be seen as a viable solution for protecting sage-grouse.24 Fluid mineral leasing should be prohibited in 

priority sage-grouse habitat areas and in a buffer area on lands directly adjacent to priority habitat.

65. 8. BLM and the Forest Service Must Manage Energy Corridors in a Way That Minimizes Effects to Sage-Grouse. Energy 

corridors create a unique set of circumstances because they are linear and will likely cross boundaries determined as 

priority sage-grouse habitat as well as habitats occupied or suitable for sage-grouse. The agencies must develop and use 

consistent criteria and management guidelines to locate or site energy corridors, and must operate and maintain new and 

existing facilities within energy corridors in a manner that minimizes impacts to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. These 

corridors often cross jurisdictional boundaries and thus federal oversight and cooperation between states is necessary. The 

Technical Team Report recommends making priority sage-grouse habitat areas exclusions areas for new right-of-way 

permits, and we support that approach. Any exceptions to that measure should be extremely limited, and only necessary 

when valid, existing rights are in play. Although we are not entirely opposed to allowing new rights-of-way co-located with 

existing rights-of-way, we would add that the project should only be permitted if human access to the project is maintained 

within existing disturbance areas, and that all project impacts are limited to minimize impacts to nearby sage-grouse, 

All Both emc0276GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-753

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

including limiting noise, dust, or other pollution. As explained above in regard to allowing 3% disturbance, we feel this 

exception would not adequately address habitat fragmentation issues. We support the measures to remove or bury 

existing power lines within priority sage-grouse habitat and reclaiming right-of-way sites no longer in use. We also support 

the measures for general sage-grouse habitat areas.

66. Suggest that –Page 22 Fluid Minerals and Solid Minerals sections. The language in the entire area of both of these sections 

should be edited to reflect the attitude of possible cooperative efforts to manage sage-grouse habitat and develop the 

energy types located in these areas. Removing energy exploration and development completely from these areas will have 

a severe impact on our local economy and also impact other areas of the country where habitat may be fragile but not 

regulated because of its effect on plant or animal species. This common sense approach would help our federal government 

continue to provide affordable energy to it’s people.

All Both emc0291GB, 

emc0055RM, 

emc0119RM

67. Limit new power lines, wind turbines, and other tall structures in or near sage grouse priority habitat. All Both emc0297GB

68. Rather than withdrawing the land to where there is no income coming into your agency by fees for exploration acres, both 

in the mining sector as well as the oil, gas & geothermal sectors, would it not have been more beneficial for you to allow the 

sale of the deferred leases and allowed the operators to aid in mitigating this problem in regard to the Sage Grouse? It 

seems to me the mining companies have done an excellent job in restoration projects throughout this State.

All Both emc0320GB

69. On page 19, Minerals section, second paragraph, there is mention of abandonment of leks by male sage-grouse if leks are 

repeatedly disturbed by raptors perching on power lines near leks. The mitigation measure or conservation measure 

should include anti-perching devices on these structures and not prevent mining or energy development. Similarly, predator 

control of ravens, crows, and magpies (corvids) is possible in identified nesting areas where power lines provide perches for

corvids to watch for sage-grouse hens to leave the nest.

All Both emc0322GB

70. Based on the restrictions outlined in the Interim Guidance IM and the Report, we are concerned that BLM may ultimately 

violate Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires federal land management agencies to ensure that the 

least restrictive stipulations are utilized to protect resource values. Accordingly, we recommend that BLM adhere to the 

law and apply the least restrictive stipulation from the alternatives in the EISs and SEISs.

All BLM emc0312GB

71. The oil and gas industry contributes significantly to local, state, and national economies, providing billions of dollars each 

year in royalties, bonuses, and severance taxes, besides other benefits of direct capital investment in local economies and 

high paying jobs. Accordingly, BLM needs to analyze the effect on the local, state and national governments from the loss 

revenue that will arise from the implementation of the new sage‐grouse policies. The analysis should also include loss of 

jobs and the increase of unemployment compensation.

All BLM emc0312GB

72. CLG is also concerned about the hostility to all oil and gas, coal and mineral development seen in the IM and Technical 

Team Report. The number of reports only document that sage grouse leave an active drill site or field. There is no research 

showing whether the birds relocated and no data suggesting that they died as a result of energy development. Relocation 

should be researched, especially any adjustments made by sage grouse. The Technical Team Report would greatly restrict 

oil and gas development through the 3% surface disturbance ceiling. Assuming this is applied throughout the identified sage 

grouse range, then oil and gas drilling would be shut down throughout much of the Rocky Mountain states. This is true for 

All BLM emc0371GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-754 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

existing leases based on BLM’s claimed authority to impose conditions of approval that change lease stipulations and 

operations. The impacts on natural gas and oil production would be significant. Moreover, the impacts on states’ economies 

and the communities would be even more severe. Wyoming has seen an increase in energy development. That coincided 

in part with drought, West Nile Virus and high numbers of predators. Until all of the factors can be weighed, compared and 

considered this rush to judgment is unwarranted.

73. Uintah County is exercising its duty under our system of Federalism to try sound novel approaches to manage public lands 

within its boundaries. This approach can best be described as a sort of zoning exercise similar to the analysis used by local 

governments in determining where single family residences and industrial areas should be located within their community. 

Uintah County and the State of Utah have developed an Energy Zone which designates lands best used for extractive 

purposes. Uintah County is also currently in the process of adopting a local sage-grouse management plan. This plan will set 

forth those areas where sage-grouse populations can continue to thrive irrespective of extractive activities. Finally, it will 

outline those areas (similar to transition areas in local zoning maps) where extractive activities and sage-grouse populations 

converge. Blanket designations, like 4 mile radiuses around leks, are unworkable and not scientifically sound. This plan will 

include designated areas of proven sage-grouse habitat and populations where the habitat is of such quality were the 

populations are stable and growing; for example the Diamond Mountain area. Uintah County proposes to delineate the 

highest and best use of all land within the County to promote stable thoughtful growth. As part of this local plan mineral 

extraction should be allowed to proceed within our Energy Zone. Credit should be given to habitat rehabilitation work in 

certain areas of the county and extractive activities should be allowed in the other areas. Science shows that sage-grouse 

populations are fairly stable and perhaps even growing in our region where active State and local management techniques 

have already been implemented. The success of such local efforts must be reflected in the RMP amendments and the local 

sage-grouse working groups must be consulted.

All Both emc0376GB

74. The BLM has a multiple use mandate under Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The existing Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) were developed after many years of analysis and public input, resulting in land use plans that 

struck an acceptable balance between multiple uses. Yet, this latest effort illustrates the continued threat of political 

vagaries potentially shifting that balance in a manner that is detrimental to energy development, grazing, fuel and vegetation 

management, mineral development and recreation. Any selected alternative must minimize the .restrictions placed on these 

legitimate and important land uses. We encourage the BLM to follow through on its commitment to protect valid, existing 

rights; such as grazing and energy leases and RS 24 77 access rights. We encourage the BLM to look not only at habitat 

availability, but also habitat suitability given the energy and mineral potential and other multiple use potential of preliminary 

priority sagegrouse habitat areas. The adoption of sound consistent land use areas insures there is no risk of sage-grouse 

conservation efforts hampering the energy industry's ability to produce domestic natural resources

All Both emc0376GB

75. We have reviewed the Preliminary Planning Criteria for the National Greater Sage-Grouse Strategy, dated January 2012 

and offer the following comments: Any Land Use Plan (LUP) amendments that contain objectives and management action 

to restore, enhance, and improve greater sage-grouse habitat should to the maximum extent possible follow State and 

Local plans, including highest and best use of lands for extraction which may contemplate mitigation efforts to promote 

extraction and enhancement of habitat that is best suited for increasing sage-grouse populations.

All Both emc0376GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-755

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

76. The plan sould include protection of habitat from energy develpoment and road buliding All Both rmc0008RM

77. Oxy respectfully disagrees that preclusion of mineral development is a conservation measure. Rather, it is a de facto 

moratorium on currently lawful and authorized activity, and thus, a decision by BLM to arbitrarily prioritize conservation of 

sage-grouse habitat over other appropriate land uses. Cf. Union Oil Co. v. Morton, 512 F.2d 743, 751-52 (9th Cir. 1975) 

(holding, in the context of leasing under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, that an indefinite suspension was subject to 

an injunction as an illegal cancellation; i.e., because the moratorium in question would have left Union Oil with a worthless

drilling lease, the moratorium amounted to a taking). Oxy questions the appropriateness of any such moratorium, 

particularly because not even a listing of the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act ("ESA") would necessarily result in such a drastic, allencompassing curtailment of mineral development. If BLM 

in fact intends to preclude mineral development to protect sage-grouse habitat, the Sage-Grouse NOI does not fully reflect 

that intent and should be amended - reinitiating the scoping process and allowing the public to comment on BLM's newly 

articulated intent. If this is not in fact BLM's intent, then BLM's reliance on the Tech nical Reportas articulated above -

should be reconsidered and BLM must invest in and utilize the NEPA process as the mechanism by which BLM evaluates 

potential conservation of sage-grouse habitat. It is through NEPA that BLM must provide full consideration of the impacts 

of such drastic conservation measures on valid existing rights, future mineral development, and BLM's mUltiple-use 

mandate, among others

All Both rmc0021RM

78. In addition to the issues listed in the accompanying informationJ I encourage the evaluation4f1h,s of the following in all 

analyses of the environmental impacts of actions on federal landsConsider all current research results on the impacts of 

energy development to sage grouse. Please do not discount any peer reviewed literature because it does not support 

results pushed by industry research efforts.

All Both emc0338GB

79. The conservation alternative would correctly require BLM and the Forest Service to identify and protect their breeding, 

brooding and winter habitats. In these habitats, the BLM and Forest Service must not allow human disturbance such as oil 

and gas drilling, power lines, and excessive cattle grazing that reduces the vegetation cover below what these animals 

require. The BLM and Forest Service have, for decades, found ways to evade and obfuscate out of their mandate to maintain 

viable and widespread populations of the Sage Grouse and other wildlife, rolling under a pseudo-legalistic rug each 

successive geographic and demographic vanquishing of the Sage Grouse. Over'the long saga of this species, each year has 

brought further population losses, with precious little acknowledgement by the BLM and Forest Service of this cumulative 

loss over time.

All Both rmc0037RM, 

rmc0070GB

80. Coordination is essential in ensuring that fish and wildlife are properly managed, within and across administrative 

boundaries. All stakeholders must be involved, and experts that manage fish and wildlife at the local, state or national levels 

must be included in energy project planning and implementation. Coordination enables unanticipated or unforeseen actions 

that arise during development to be addressed in a timely and appropriate manner. A key stakeholder in the administration 

of public lands and fish and wildlife resources, the public must be included to build trust and brainstorm management tactics. 

TRCP recommends that you: · Foster broad-based coordination between fish and wildlife managers, landowners and 

affected stakeholders to ensure fish and wildlife sustainability. · Establish expanded coordination across geopolitical 

All Both emc0380GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-756 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

boundaries between property owners (public and private). Coordination between the Wyoming Game & Fish Department, 

US Fish & Wildlife Services, and other federal and state land agencies must occur to ensure consistent and comprehensive 

management objectives across geo-political boundaries. · Ensure that managers consider the crucial habitats as well as 

movement or transitional corridors of fish and wildlife. · Coordinate among all affected stakeholders during planning and 

implementation of public-lands energy projects. · Include state fish and wildlife agencies in energy development planning and 

the monitoring of fish and wildlife during and after development. · Establish a process for annual review and adjustments of 

actions that affect fish and wildlife. An adaptive management strategy is appropriate if based on established adaptive 

management guidelines and science.

81. Transparency is essential to building trust among stakeholders and the general public. Transparency can prevent 

unnecessary delays, legal actions or bad press. Openness during energy development enables fish and wildlife management 

that benefits all stakeholders, not just project proponents. TRCP recommends that you: · Identify “special places” with 

exceptional resource concerns or values where energy development should not be allowed. Map these locations and 

incorporate these values into management plans. · Continue to provide up-to-date information through a range of media 

and informational outlets to the public and fish and wildlife managers regarding energy development projects. · Direct and 

manage leasing and development using complete and up-to-date baseline information on fish and wildlife resources. · Utilize 

coordinated plans for energy development and fish and wildlife management. · Provide the public with information about all 

proposed public-lands energy leases and development; allow sufficient time for public comment. · Ensure that all meetings 

related to publiclands use and energy development part of the public record.

All Both emc0380GB

82. Science is the foundation of sustainable land and resource management. It is essential to understanding how fish and wildlife

react to energy development and maintaining sustainable populations during and after development. Utilizing peer reviewed 

and published science enables a balanced approach that sustains both energy AND fish and wildlife instead of either energy 

OR fish and wildlife. TRCP recommends that you: · Utilize science, including most current published science in all fish and 

wildlife decisions, particularly when specific research has been conducted on the impacts of energy development. For your 

convenience, a list of recently published literature has been attached to this letter. · Assure that mitigation and monitoring 

based on new scientific information is implemented in the energy development process. · Incorporate science-based 

mitigation, using tested and proven methods of adaptive management, when making decisions about fish and wildlife 

management and energy development. Identify and address “gaps” in science prior to development and implement 

coordinated research to address these gaps. · If necessary, utilize a third-party review of development and mitigation 

proposals. · Establish a credible and qualified “science review team” and engage science-based organizations for fish and 

wildlife management and development decisions. · Establish a process to incorporate new information and science into 

planning and implementation of existing and new energy projects.

All Both emc0380GB

83. Regarding energy development, we understand that on-shore energy consumption and production continues to be a major 

part of our nation’s overall energy policy. This means that careful attention must be given to how industry can expand to 

satisfy increasing energy demands while ensuring the sustainability of sage grouse and their habitats.

All Both emc0380GB

84. NV Energy is concerned that the renewal of existing right of way grants or special use permits for those transmission and 

distribution facilities within preliminary priority sage grouse habitat may require significant permitting and mitigation 

All Both rmc0049GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-757

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

requirements including additional NEPA analysis; undergrounding of existing facilities; relocation of transmission and/or 

distribution corridors; etc. It is the opinion of NV Energy that these potential mitigation requirements could create greater

disturbances and have a more negative effect than what exists presently. Therefore, NV Energy requests that proposed 

mitigation for existing transmission and distribution infrastructure be analyzed in the EIS. It should be noted mitigation 

measures including, but not limited to, the relocation of existing electrical infrastructure would directly impact Nevada rate 

payers.

85. NV Energy also expresses concern over language not allowing human disturbance to exceed 2.5% of the species' total 

habitat "regardless of surface ownership." Is it the federal agencies intent to regulate those proposed actions that are solely 

on private land? If so, where does this authority come from? NV Energy's concern is that the regulation of private lands may 

impede the development of high priority energy projects which in tum impacts Nevada rate payers.

All Both rmc0049GB

86. Furthermore, sage-grouse habitat must be protected from land uses such as energy development and livestock overgrazing 

that can degrade the natural landscape. Consistent management standards for these and other industries must be adopted 

throughout the bird’s range based on the best available science, and according to recommendations made by the National 

Technical Team in their sage-grouse report.

All Both fla0000GB

87. E. EIS’s Affected Environment Analysis The “affected environment” section of the EIS should describe “the existing 

condition and trend of issuerelated elements of the human environment that may be affected by implementing the 

proposed action or an alternative.”143 Considering the close relationship of sage-grouse conservation and wind 

development, the “affected environment” section of the EIS should analyze the following issues: 1) Existing and proposed 

renewable energy projects on federal lands, and projects on non-federal lands, but that still are affected by federal land 

decisions (e.g., projects requiring federal right-of-ways grants); 2) Estimated acreage of sage-grouse habitat set for 

development and potential energy projection losses if proposed developments are prohibited or restricted; and 3) Effects 

on the environment if wind energy is not developed, such as the resulting need for less-attractive energy sources.

All Both emc0344GB

88. In its list of Problem Statements, WAFWA (2006) outlined a daunting list of threats to sage grouse persistence: - The 

placement of energy corridors and associated facilities may lead to negative impacts to greater sage grouse and their 

habitats.

All Both emc0343GB

89. We furthermore petition the BLM and Forest Service pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) to defer all mineral sales and leasing as 

well as all project-level approvals within the bounds of the more robust Core Area boundaries we have recommended in 

these comments. The BLM has full authority and discretion to undertake this measure under IM 2004-110 Change 1, and 

doing so will preserve the decision space in the Plan Amendment process and prevent permitted actions that could 

undermine the effectiveness of alternative sage grouse Plan Amednment management direction that will be adopted at the 

end of this NEPA process.

All Both emc0343GB

90. If sage-grouse are to be conserved, BLM’s management paradigms and on-the-ground actions must immediately be changed. 

Habitats must not be sacrificed. The National Technical Team report underplays the serious ubiquitous pervasive threat to 

sage-grouse habitats posed by domestic livestock grazing across nearly all public lands. The Report and associated IMs 

continue near-status quo management for livestock and many other threats. The IM is riddled with loopholes, and very 

weak and ineffective provisions that are at times weaker than the NTT. For example, with livestock grazing where there is 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-758 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

no requirement that anything at all actually has to change on the ground. For other threats, the NTT and Memos fall back 

on largely the same lists of BMPs and Standard Operating Procedures that have helped caused the demise of sage-grouse 

habitats over the years. Some oil ad gas provisions may be better than BLM had previously put on paper but applied only 

in Priority areas.

91. A recent article exposes serious flaws in the Wyoming Core Model. 

http://yubanet.com/enviro/Powder-River-Basin-sage-grouse-at-risk-forextirpation. php#.T2TMsY79o6E The article 

Powder River Basin sage-grouse at risk for extirpation describes a BLM-commissioned report finding that: The study 

estimates that 27 percent of the pre-development sage grouse population has already been lost as a result of heavy coalbed 

methane and conventional drilling in the Powder River Basin, and predicts that only 39 percent of the original population 

will remain when the full build-out of coalbed methane wells reached 8 wells per square mile across the Basin, even in the 

absence of a West Nile outbreak. The study also found that large leks would be expected to decline by 70 percent from 

predevelopment numbers as well spacing reaches 4 wells per square mile, the standard density for conventional oil and gas 

but only half the density of coalbed methane fields. The effect of drilling on sage grouse was found in the study to be strong 

out to 12.4 miles from the lek itself, indicating that larger Core Areas are warranted. So clearly large blocks of habitat must 

be protected, and it really is all the landscape used by a population of grouse, not just some arbitrary 4 or 5 mile distance

from some leks, as proposed in the Doherty Core that BLM is using as the basis for this highly flawed Priority and General 

Habitat segregation model. It’s not that larger Core Areas are needed, it is the landscape that is used that must be 

protected

All Both emc0411GB

92. BLM has a long history of making lofty promises of better management and conservation, then never implementing them. 

For example, in 2004, BLM’s National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy) promised under Guidance for the 

management of sagebrush plant communities for sagegrouse: - Avoid constructing livestock management facilities (i.e. 

corrals, tanks, troughs, pipelines, fences, etc.) next to leks. - Design and locate the placement of fences for livestock so as 

to not disturb important sagegrouse habitat areas. - Consider seasonal closures to protect priority sage-grouse habitat if 

other alternatives will not achieve desired objectives. - Use grazing practices that promote the growth and persistence of 

native shrubs, grasses and forbs needed by sage-grouse for seasonal food and concealment - Maintain seeps, springs, wet 

meadows, and riparian vegetation in a functional and diverse condition for young sage-grouse. - Maintain sagebrush 

understory and diversity adjacent to crucial season sage-grouse habitat unless removal is necessary to achieve 

sage-grouse habitat objective. - Where other grazing practices are not achieving, or cannot achieve, the desired objectives, 

a short term option may be livestock exclusion. There were also some measures for oil and gas and geothermal 

development that have also been routinely ignored by the agency: - Avoid the impact of construction and operations by not 

placing mines, oil and gas and geothermal drilling sites and facilities, roads, and mineral material disposal sites in or next to 

sensitive habitats such as sage-grouse leks, nesting, brood rearing, breeding, or wintering habitat. - Whenever feasible and 

environmentally preferred, avoid surface occupancy by roads powerlines, fences, or other structures adjacent to occupied 

leks - Consider seasonal closures to protect priority sage grouse habitat if other alternatives will not achieve the desired 

objective. So BLM had already adopted some requirements to protect sagebrush habitats in permits for grazing 

recreation, mining, and oil and gas. The first energy provision above has been significantly weakened in the most recent 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-759

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

iteration Priority scheme that allows more development to occur. The loose wording that always allows BLM an out so it 

can cave into industry has not been tightened up. Some of the provisions, such as relating to springs and seeps for Oil and 

Gas are not even included for geothermal in the IM. BLM’s Conservation Plan appears to provide broader protection for 

these habitats (see above). Now BLM uses maintain enhance, or restore only for PPH. None of this wording applies to PGH 

in the IM. So the situation is immediately worse for General habitat than under the Conservation Plan. Now BLM is only 

supposed to reduce and mitigate to the extent practical. The IM’s appalling General Habitat provisions appear to violate 

BLM’s 2004 Conservation Plan.

93. The Plan amendments "will be limited to making land use plan decisions specific to the conservation of sage-grouse." This 

will only serve to cause more conflict. Many inadequate mining, energy, visual, transportation/OHV and other provisions of 

Land Use Plans come into direct conflict with sage-grouse habitat protection requirements, and it is very hard to 

understand just how BLM will split hairs here. See WWP Jarbidge RMP comments, explaining how weak VRM standards, 

lack of mineral withdrawals, energy accommodations and other RMP provisions would adversely affect management of 

sage-grouse habitats for sustainable populations. It will also serve to put more species in jeopardy - as sagebrush-dependent 

species with differing habitat requirements to some degree than sage-grouse get impacted as agencies shift and intensify all 

manner of degrading and disturbing uses (such as livestock) into the Sacrifice General occupied habitats or non-grouse 

areas.

All BLM emc0411GB

94. The Scoping Notice states that the process will recognize "valid existing rights." What are these? How many "valid existing 

rights" are there currently located across the sagebrush biome? Including in all Key, General, Priority, Restoration habitat 

and discarded sagebrush biome areas? Please provide maps of all existing geothermal leases, oil and gas leases, wind ROWS, 

mining claims, mines, etc. and overlay them on all populations, as well as identified PMUs (Nevada, California) or other 

populations. What is considered a "right"? Can BLM revoke permits, leases, etc., or at least significantly amend them at any 

time?

All Both emc0411GB

95. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios (RFDSs) are to be used. Regarding the BLM promise to prepare RFDSs: 

This must be a much more rigorous, honest, science-based analysis than other RFDSs we have seen the BLM and Forest 

Service prepare. These (for oil and gas, geothermal) have greatly under-estimated the amount of development that could 

occur, and very poorly considered impacts of development under the RFDSs to lands, waters, wildlife, and biodiversity.

All BLM emc0411GB

96. This analysis must also include potential financial speculation associated with leasing and exploration (which can cause 

significant damage to vegetation, spread weeds, disturb wildlife during critical periods of the year, etc.), and other activities. 

BLM must consider and map in detail all the fluid mineral leases it has issued, and foreseeable new lease areas. By the time 

all oil and gas, geothermal, CBM and other leases are tallied, and mapped, nearly the entire public estate is held, or soon will 

be held, by some potential energy developer.

All BLM emc0411GB

97. For the past couple of years, agencies have been using another category to try to separate out populations, and minimize 

the importance of losses to the sagebrush habitats. This is the effort to segregate greater sage-grouse into eastern vs. 

western portions of the range on the basis of claims that grouse face different threats in different parts of their range. 

USFWS used this artifice in defending its toothless Warranted but Precluded Finding in litigation, and took it to absurd 

lengths in its arguments there. First, many of the same threats occur across the range - livestock grazing, roads no matter 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-760 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

what the cause, invasive species, mining. Second, increasingly renewable energy threats with many of the same impacts as 

oil and gas are accelerating in the western portion of the species range, and mining is exploding in northern and central 

Nevada and some other western areas. Plus hundreds of thousands of acres are now being leased for oil and gas 

development all over Nevada. Renewable energy examples: Major industrial wind farm on Steens Mountain Oregon and 

new transmission lines, major new transmission lines like Gateway and MSTI, geothermal development often by foreign 

entities (McGinness Hills and other areas), massive geothermal leasing proposals are appearing - for over 500,000 acres on 

Bridgeport Ranger District lands and elsewhere in NV. Mining is expanding into new areas where sage-grouse populations 

are already barely hanging on, and new mining is proposed in areas with larger populations, as well. In the east, weeds like 

cheatgrass are increasing (see WBEA Assessment discussion). New and expanded mining, new transmission lines, and oil 

and gas harms are far exceeding those agencies claimed would occur from these new or recently expanded developments. 

See 2012 Yubanet article on failures of Wyoming Core Model in the Powder River Basin.

98. Is BLM just using public lands to fuel energy developer speculation schemes and exploration disturbance - and promoting 

the parties obtaining leases potentially bilking investors? Or is there a real threat of Oil and Gas? Detailed mapping of oil and 

gas leases, geothermal leases, wind and solar rights-of-ways and other leases/rows must be provided, so these questions can 

be answered. So must a map of mine claims.

All BLM emc0411GB

99. It is essential that all ongoing activities, all leases /ROWs already issued - all get reviewed, altered, changed, amended and/or 

terminated where conflicts are identified with habitats in the interim and immediately upon completion of this process. 

Existing leases, rights-of-way, etc. must be immediately amended to at least comply with the terms of IMs that must be 

greatly strengthened and that should not be based on segregating habitat. This can be readily done. Simply overlay the land 

records of leases, rights-of-way, grazing permits, etc. with mapped habitats, and inform the lease/permit holder of new 

protective provisions.

All Both emc0411GB

100. Road BMPs includes: Restrict traffic to only "authorized users" on new roads. This effectively privatizes the road and the 

public lands to benefit developers. It cuts off public access to public lands - so that the public cannot see what industry is 

doing to them and to sage-grouse habitats. This would allow wind developers, oil and gas and other interests to cut off 

public access to sites. It would give priority to users who profit from public lands - at the expense of the public. We note 

that the China Mountain DEIS contained just such a provision to block public access, and prevent the public from seeing the 

environmental damage (and avian and bat mortality) that development and operation of industrial wind facilities causes. This 

benefits developers who don't want the public to report dead golden eagles or dead sage-grouse killed by industrial wind or 

other energy facilities. Plus public lands ranchers who are abusing public lands have long sought to restrict public access 

(albeit at the same time that the rural county they are in is claiming every goat trail as an RS 2477 right of way). There is 

not even a requirement that an equal number of roads to those being built must be closed - for example. All these same old 

standard BLM BMPs do is to enable more disturbance to tear apart a landscape. There is no requirement for removal of 

existing disturbances from higher quality or other important habitats. Closing and rehabbing "duplicate" roads only does 

not reduce road density.

All BLM emc0411GB

101. BLM states: "Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation." Sagebrush ecosystems recover very 

slowly from disturbances. See Baker 2006, Baker 2011 in Knick and Connelly eds. Studies in Avian Biology. So in reality this 

All BLM emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-761

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

measure is not likely to really have any positive effect in time to make much, if any, difference to the local sage-grouse 

population. We are seeing this placed in documents supporting industrial wind development too. For example, the China 

Mountain Wind EIS alternative where "phased" development would result in bulldozing, then rehabbing, then tearing up 

rehabbed lands again, as the next phase is built. And this "rip it up, re-seed, rip it up again" Phased Development action was 

claimed to be "mitigation" as part of a segmented Phase In the project approach. "Adaptive management" was also to be part 

of it, as BLM claimed it would "learn" from the first wave of phased development. This was put forth apparently so that a 

false analysis could claim that a Phased in project might have less impact.

102. BLM states that disturbance from motion [and reflections?] of industrial energy or other structures is a concern. BLM 

proposes to "design or site permanent structures that create movement ..to minimize disturbance to grouse." What other 

activities besides fluid mineral on public lands result in "movement"? What about low level military overflights? Startle 

effects? This is often coupled with sudden onset of loud noises. Why is there no section of this report to address the very 

loud noises and visual impacts of military training activities that occur across vast areas of Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and 

portions of other western states - with flights down to 100 ft, AGL (above ground level).

All BLM emc0411GB

103. BLM merely lists washing vehicles to limit invasive species, a standard practice for decades now. BLM ignores integrated 

weed management actions like removing livestock disturbance that spreads weeds crosscountry affecting a landscape much 

beyond the bulldozed disturbance area weed infestation footprint of a typical energy project and its associated roading and 

other disturbances.

All BLM emc0411GB

104. This section also includes: "restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount 

needed." How is the "minimum number needed" to be determined? Developers will always ask for whatever makes their 

development the most profitable - i.e. maximizes profits. Why isn't BLM requiring removal of livestock grazing to minimize 

weed spread, mesopredators, etc.ad to enhance rehab success and prevent added disturbance of native species in the 

footprint of development and surrounding lands? BLM must avoid placing development in undisturbed sagebrush lands 

and habitats in the first place must be the first consideration. Why isn’t there a requirement that livestock and other fencing 

be removed - if new fencing is to be added? What about nearly invisible electric fence wires - used by the Forest and at times 

BLM? We have seen these imposed under Categorical Exclusions on a temporary basis as band-aids that also serve to 

intensify livestock use in all mesic areas that are not within the fence perimeter. These must prohibited. As an example, in 

Challis BLM sage-grouse lands in the Pahsimeroi, Decisions have been issued allowing locations of such fencing to be shifted 

all over the place as a transitory band-aid so that BLM can claim "improvement" or "progress" toward rangeland health 

standards in small temporarily fenced off areas. Such fencing intensifies impacts in unfenced areas.

All BLM emc0411GB

105. Why is there no discussion about protecting flows of all springs, seeps and streams affected by energy and mining activity? 

For example, cyanide heap leach mining causes aquifer declines and aquifer drawdown of springs/streams. Water sources 

critical for wildlife may be severely altered by mining activity, and watershed by associated surface disturbance. These 

systems in arid western lands are typically already under significant stress from degradation by ubiquitously grazed 

livestock, and livestock water developments that remove water from spring sources to promote livestock use, as well as 

gouge stock ponds in springs or drainages. See Sada et al. BLM Technical Bulletin 2003. This alters and disrupt drainage 

networks, flow patterns, and extent of riparian and meadow habitats. There is serious risk of declines in water levels or 

All Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-762 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

cessation of flows altogether due to combined effects of mining, roading, grazing disturbances - all serving to desertify 

landscapes. Why are there no protections for such threats, especially given the breakneck speed of mining development in 

already fragmented areas of Nevada and other western states?

106. Road construction related to energy development is a primary impact on sage grouse habitat from habitat fragmentation 

and direct disturbance perspectives. Rowland et al. (2006) modeled sage grouse distribution, and reached the following 

conclusions: “The secondary road network is a highly significant factor influencing processes in this landscape and is being

developed and expanded rapidly across much of the WBEA (Thomson et al. 2005). Secondary roads are being built as part 

of the infrastructure to support non-renewable energy extraction (Chapters 2, 4). For example, within the Jonah Field in 

the Upper Green River Valley, >95% of the area had road densities >2 mi/mi2 (Thomson et al. 2005).” p. 5-10. 

Furthermore, “The dominant feature affecting output of the sage-grouse disturbance model was secondary roads, which 

occupy nearly 8% of the study area (Table 5.2) and are presumed to negatively influence an even larger extent.” Pp. 6-15 

through 16. Holloran (2005) found significant impacts of road traffic on sage grouse habitat use, concluding that habitat 

effectiveness declined in areas adjacent to roads with increasing vehicle traffic, documenting the secondary effect 

referenced by Rowland et al.

All Both emc0343GB

107. Areas of low biological value and low energy potential (19% of eastern range, Fig. 3) represent low conflict opportunities for 

sage-grouse. Our analyses document the importance of these areas in maintaining connectivity to high value core regions 

in Montana (Fig. 3). Core regions with low biological value and low energy potential will be important in this regard, with 

restoration being one of the key strategies ... So this appears to be sacrificing areas important for connectivity if the 

habitat has high energy potential. How is “low biological value” being determined? By only relying on sage-grouse? Needs 

of a whole suite of other species may be minimized. See, for example, ICBEMP Wisdom Terrestrial Vertebrate analyses 

(2002) and species groups/suites. Agencies must apply integrated conservation planning, and not sacrifice other habitats, 

or displace damaging grazing like grazing into other habitats that are important for other rare or declining species.

All Both emc0411GB

108. As a person who has spent time in the prairie lands of the west, I have been appalled at the wholesale habitat destruction 

that has already occurred from land uses by absentee landlords for energy development and lifestock overgrazing. One is 

hard-pressed to find any semblance of what the western prairies once looked like. Time to stop this land 

MIS-MANAGEMENT before we lose more than just the poor Sage-Grouse

All Both fla0005gb

109. In my area the PSE Wild Horse Wind Farm near Ellensburg WA is an example of an energy facility built with restoring Sage 

Brush Steppe in mind. I suggest you look at that facilities habitat restoration activities.

All Both fla0012gb

110. Unfortunately, the Greater Sage Grouse has fallen victim to that same westward expansion, but the culprits aren't really 

hunters--it's over development, be it housing or over grazing or the new pandemic-- gas & oil development.

All Both emc0182rm

111. Only by requiring the strongest protective measures when considering new development proposals in sage-grouse habitat 

will you be able to ensure survival of this spectacular species. To that end, I ask that you require the following conservation 

measures in the relevant Resource Management Plans and Land Management Plans.- No new leasing of non-renewable 

energy resources within priority sage-grouse habitat.

All Both flb0000gb

112. The planning process must address all degrading land uses in sage-grouse habitat, such as energy development and livestock 

grazing, and management standards must be based on the best available science. Federal planners must ensure that all 

All Both flc0000gb
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-763

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

planning documents make the same prescriptions for land uses across sage-grouse range.

113. They have such specific requirements for habitat. Plowing through to put up power lines and roads will destroy the survival 

this charming and worthy species.

All Both fla0066gb

114. As a person who has spent time in the prairie lands of the west, I have been appalled at the wholesale habitat destruction 

that has already occurred from land uses by absentee landlords for energy development and lifestock overgrazing! One is 

hard-pressed to find any semblance of what the western prairies once looked like. Time to stop this land 

MIS-MANAGEMENT before we lose more than just the poor Sage-Grouse

All Both fla0005GB

115. Garfield County's concerns, more simply put, are that BLM's potential implementation of Conservation Measures from the 

GSGCM report are not warranted in Colorado, and such an approach would result in a virtual moratorium on energy 

development severely impacting the economy of the County and northwest Colorado, further exacerbating an already 

economically depressed and challenged area. NOTE: This comment includes Table 3: Impacts to Lease Sections in Garfield 

County

CO BLM emc0058RM

116. The County recommends the BLM to continue supporting the primary goal it has already agreed to implement in the CPW 

Conservation Plan which is to ''Maintain a viable population for GSG while developing energy & mineral resources" which 

is to be implemented by actions such as Investigate opportunities and provide incentives to promote cluster development 

in key GSG habitats. Cluster the development of roads, pipelines, electric lines, and other facilities, and use existing, 

combined corridors where possible." (See page 87 to 93 in the CPW Conservation Plan for the comprehensive set of goals, 

objectives, and actions relating to the energy industry and mineral development.)

CO Both emc0058RM

117. As discussed above, North Park has a very stable sage-grouse population. Anthropogenic land uses have occurred on the 

BLM in the past and we have been able to maintain a healthy sagegrouse population. We have had oil and gas development 

(e.g. the McCallum Oil Field), strip mining, gravel pits, power lines and limited amount of road development. Sage-grouse 

are present even though there has been historical anthropogenic disturbance. We are requesting that analyses be 

conducted to show how the current BLM regulations are not adequate to maintain sage-grouse in North Park. We 

recommend that the BLM analyze disturbance through time, possibly through historic aerial photographs, in conjunction 

with historical sage-grouse population data to determine the historical amount of anthropogenic disturbance in North Park 

that has been consistent with the maintenance of a stable sage-grouse population.

CO BLM emc0060RM

118. The lack of energy development in Middle Park has been beneficial to sustaining our current sage-grouse population levels. 

To sustain the Middle Park population the working group supports the NTT report recommendation of no leasing within 

PPH areas for the Middle Park population. The Middle Park population is the third largest in the state of Colorado after 

Northwest and North Park populations. These 3 populations account for 93% of the males counted. Of the three largest 

populations Middle Park is the only population that does not currently have any energy development activity. There are 

limited leases in Middle Park but at this point most of the lease sales have been deferred until the completion of the BLM 

Kremmling Field Office Resource Management Plan. The MPSGWG strongly encourages protection of the Middle Park 

population from future lease sales to assure that the Middle Park population is not further threatened by energy 

development. The EIS should include an analysis of the NTT recommendations in reference to Mineral Development as 

CO Both emc0063RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-764 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

stated on pg 21 last paragraph of the NTT report and use the most current research to guide BLM in their planning. The 

CCP GrSG Disturbance Guidelines are attached in Appendix II as a reference for BLM to utilize while addressing the issues 

identified in this letter.

119. I think that the community should also be able to have an analysis of the impacts of predation and hunting on the 

sustainability of the Sage Grouse population in Jackson County.

CO Both emc0077RM

120. The Meeker/White River and Parachute Piceance/Roan populations (Colorado Plateau MZ) are in the Uintah-Piceance 

geologic basin. These populations are small and isolated, and are threatened by demographic, genetic and environmental 

stochasticity due to small size and isolation. In addition, these populations are threatened by a suite of deterministic threats, 

including: housing and energy development, predation, disease, and conifer invasion. Based on projected habitat impacts 

(particularly energy development) under current management prescriptions, the FWS believes that all of the populations in 

the Colorado Plateau MZ will be reduced in size and isolated in the future.

CO BLM emc0070RM

121. Because energy development is a leading concern in the eastern/Rocky Mountain region, the BLM needs to direct 

development to areas which have low conflicts with greater sage-grouse conservation in all alternatives. All alternatives 

should identify and map priority habitat that will be set-aside from development or protected via stringent and enduring 

management protections that meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing populations in these areas.

CO BLM emc0070RM

122. In addition, each plan should preserve options to set areas that are currently subject to valid existing rights, but not 

intensively developed, aside from future development. All alternatives should include this provision in areas of contiguous 

priority habitat that have not yet been intensively developed. For example, all alternatives in each plan should specify that, 

when valid existing rights in contiguous priority habitat areas that are not intensely developed, expire (e.g. existing oil and 

gas leases), these areas will be set-aside from future development. This is especially important in areas where a substantial 

proportion of the priority habitat is under valid existing rights.

CO BLM emc0070RM

123. Therefore, in order to maximize conservation benefit given other competing values, we recommend protective 

management of preliminary priority habitat delineated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, along with designation of ACECs 

informed by the following additional criteria: Prioritize ACEC designation in relatively large contiguous areas that are: 1)

within areas of high biological value, 2) currently undeveloped, and 3) unencumbered by valid existing rights, and/or have 

low potential for development (e.g., low wind or oil and gas potential)33. These areas where high biological value intersects

with low energy development potential identify low conflict areas on which to immediately focus ACEC designation.

CO BLM emc0070RM

124. Therefore, in order to maximize conservation benefit given other competing values, we recommend protective 

management of preliminary priority habitat delineated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, along with designation of ACECs 

informed by the following additional criteria: Consider ACEC designation in high biological value areas that, although 

encumbered by valid existing rights, are not yet developed. This may be particularly feasible where actual development 

potential is low despite the existence of valid existing rights (e.g., due to speculative leasing in areas of low energy potential). 

It may also be feasible in areas where other constraints (e.g., lack of infrastructure, other resource conflicts) will make 

development relatively difficult and costly. Management of ACECs designated in such areas could include aggressive pursuit 

of available tools to increase the amount of protected habitat, including fluid mineral lease retirements, voluntary grazing 

permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts. This is 

CO BLM emc0070RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-765

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

important, as Doherty et. al. (2011) found that 1/3 of the 25% core areas have been leased for oil and gas development. 

Further, 44% of areas with high biological value are at risk for energy development.34

125. CPW believes the following range-wide threats pose the greatest risk to greater sage-grouse populations and their habitats 

(not in order of risk): Energy development and associated infrastructure have the potential to directly and indirectly 

negatively impact sage-grouse across the entire PPH area. Currently, these activities pose the largest risk in the Northwest 

Colorado, Piceance-Parachute-Roan (PPR), and North Park sage-grouse populations.

CO Both emc0072RM

126. CPW is unclear how unanticipated future activities will be addressed in the PRMP? For instance, recent technological 

advances which allow for the exploration and recovery of fluid minerals from previously uneconomic oil and gas fields 

and/or geologic formations may result in unanticipated development in areas not previously considered economic. 

Undeveloped uranium mining in the Middle Park PPH may have a negative impact on Middle Park habitat conditions and 

populations. Solar, wind, biomass and geothermal resources should be fully explored in the context of threats and potential 

impacts to greater sage-grouse. CPW requests that BLM/USFS provide a robust investigation of future alternative energy 

development potentials and their resultant impacts.

CO Both emc0072RM

127. Energy development on private land is also a potential off-property direct and indirect threat/impact. Several large coal 

mines are also operating in NW Colorado on privately owned land.

CO Both emc0072RM

128. BLM should confirm that approval decisions related to federal minerals beneath private or state surface will not be 

conditioned with any proposed conservation measures or restrictions to protect the sage-grouse or its habitat. The 

Sage-Grouse NOI states that " [IJands addressed in the RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be public lands (including 

surface-estate split estate lands) managed by the BLM, and National Forest System lands, respectively, in greater 

sage-grouse habitats. Any decisions as to the RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will apply only to Federal lands 

administered by either the BLM or the FS." 76 Fed. Reg. at nOll. Based on this statement, Oxy understands that BLM will 

not be evaluating in the EIS/amendments to the RMPs, split estate lands in which BLM owns the minerals and a private 

surface owner or the State of Colorado owns the surface. Oxy agrees with such an approach. Specifically, Oxy respe ct fully 

requests that BLM confirm in any future NEPA documents, including any draft EISs, Final EISs and Records of Decision 

("RODs"), and any revised or amended RMPs that approvals by BLM (including but not limited to Applications for Permits 

to Drill ("APDs")) for federal minerals beneath private or state surface will not be conditioned with any proposed 

conservation measures or restrictions to protect the sage-grouse.

CO BLM rmc0021RM

129. The Nevada, Idaho, Utah, California, Oregon, Colorado sage-grouse habitats identified as "Priority" and "General" and Non 

Habitat must be overlaid on current lease and claim mapping. This is part of understanding what an area’s RFDS might be.

CO Both emc0411GB

130. As a North Park resident I believe that the BLM should curtail further oil and gas exploration and cease issuing permits on 

Federal lands in the North Park area. The existing wells and concomitant infrastructure should be used to help determine 

the extent of the depredation to the Greater Sage Grouse caused by the extractive industries. If it turns out that the impact

is limited the BLM can always start leasing again.

CO BLM emc0183RM

131. Because energy development is a leading concern in the eastern/Rocky Mountain region, the BLM and FS need to direct 

development to areas with low conflicts with greater sage-grouse conservation in all alternatives. All alternatives should 

identify and map priority habitat that will be set-aside from development or protected via stringent and enduring 

East Both emc0089RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-766 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

management protections that meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing populations in these areas.

132. Therefore, in order to maximize conservation benefit given other competing values, we recommend protective 

management of priority habitat (which should include enough habitat to conserve at least 80-90% of the existing 

population), along with designation of ACECs informed by the following additional criteria: Prioritize ACEC designation in 

relatively large contiguous areas that are: 1) within areas of high biological value, 2) currently undeveloped, and 3) 

unencumbered by valid existing rights, and/or have low potential for development (e.g., low wind or oil and gas potential)17. 

These areas where high biological value intersects with low energy development potential identify low conflict areas on 

which to immediately focus ACEC designation.

East Both emc0089RM

133. Therefore, in order to maximize conservation benefit given other competing values, we recommend protective 

management of priority habitat (which should include enough habitat to conserve at least 80-90% of the existing 

population), along with designation of ACECs informed by the following additional criteria: Consider ACEC designation in 

high biological value areas that, although encumbered by valid existing rights, are not yet developed. This may be particularly 

feasible where actual development potential is low despite the existence of valid existing rights (e.g., due to speculative 

leasing in areas of low energy potential). It may also be feasible in areas where other constraints (e.g., lack of infrastructure, 

other resource conflicts) will make development relatively difficult and costly. Management of ACECs designated in such 

areas could include aggressive pursuit of available tools to increase the amount of protected habitat, including fluid mineral 

lease retirements, voluntary grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal unsuitability findings, 

and mineral claim buyouts. This is important, as Doherty et. al. (2011) found that 1/3 of the 25% core areas have been leased

for oil and gas development. Further, 44% of areas with high biological value are at risk for energy development18.

East Both emc0089RM

134. i. Lander, WY RMP Alternative B also requires anti-perching devices to be installed on all new overhead powerlines in 

greater sage-grouse, white-tailed prairie dog, mountain plover, and pygmy rabbit habitats to reduce predation from raptors. 

In addition, the BLM will work with ROW holders to identify conflict areas and get anti-perching devices installed on 

existing overhead powerlines in these same habitats. (DEIS 882) Because approximately 74-80% of sage-grouse females nest 

within 4 miles of leks (Moynahan 2004, Holloran and Anderson 2005), this measure may help to reduce predation pressures 

on nesting and foraging grouse. We recommend the use of deterrent devices on H-frame structures because recent 

research indicates they are effective tools in reducing perch use of such structures (Lammers and Collopy 2007, Slater and 

Smith 2010). The BLM and FS should consider not only anti-perching devices to reduce raptor predation on grouse, but also 

measures (not included in the Lander RMP) that would reduce conditions (e.g., nest substrates and anthropogenic 

attractants) that enhance local raven populations, to reduce potential raven predation on sage-grouse nests. Energy 

development in undeveloped sagebrush areas has been shown to facilitate increases in the abundance of breeding ravens, 

with concomitant negative effects on nest survival of sage-grouse (Bui et al. 2010, Coates and Delehanty 2010). Raven 

predation on grouse nests may have a significantly adverse impact on local grouse populations (Coates 2007). BLM and FS 

should recommend that any newly permitted permanent, highprofile structures will be outfitted with raven deterrents.

East Both emc0089RM

135. Energy development was identified as the most significant extinction risk to the greater sage-grouse in the eastern portion 

of its range. Fossil fuel energy development includes exploration and drilling for oil, gas, and coal-bed methane, and 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-767

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

associated activities including road construction and use, seismic surveys, pipeline corridors, and powerlines. Such activities 

can result in direct habitat loss, fragmentation of important habitat, noise disturbance, and direct mortality to sage-grouse. 

Indirect effects may also include gaseous emissions, changes in water availability and quality, and human presence. The 

amount of direct habitat loss from the activity’s footprint - attributable generally to well pads, roads, pipelines, powerlines, 

and crushing of vegetation during seismic surveys - ultimately depends upon well densities and associated losses from 

ancillary facilities. Impacts are often felt well beyond the life of the activity, as roads associated with energy development are 

often used well after the termination of drilling and production. Scientists have identified several impacts to sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitat resulting from oil and gas development. On page 18, the NTT Report lists primary potential risks to 

sage‐grouse from energy development as: • Direct disturbance, displacement, or mortality of grouse • Direct loss of habitat, 

or loss of effective habitat through fragmentation and reduced habitat patch-size and quality • Cumulative landscape‐level 

impacts (Bergquist et al. 2007) The NTT Report goes on to summarize that a robust body of scientific literature agrees that 

"surface‐disturbing energy or mineral development within priority sage‐grouse habitats is not consistent with a goal to 

maintain or increase populations or distribution." (p.19) In fact, no single published scientific report demonstrates a positive 

influence of development on sage‐grouse populations or habitats. "Breeding populations are severely reduced at well pad 

densities commonly permitted (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007a). Magnitude of losses varies from one field to another, 

but findings suggest that impacts are universally negative and typically severe." (p.19)

136. Besides habitat fragmentation, other challenges to sage grouse conservation persist. Some threats are indirect effects from 

the mechanisms that create habitat fragmentation. For example, noise from drilling and associated activities can drive 

sage-grouse from the area, can cause physiological stress, and moreover may interfere with auditory cues and 

communication between individual birds. As the NTT Report points out, a recently completed research study in Wyoming 

revealed that noise from natural gas drilling and roads resulted in a 29 percent and 73 percent decline respectively in male 

peak attendance at leks relative to paired controls, and that declines were immediate and sustained throughout the 

experiment with low statistical support for a cumulative effect of noise over time.

East Both emc0167RM

137. Mineral development, with associated infrastructure, thus poses a serious threat to protecting sage-grouse. Due to the 

profound aforementioned effects that energy development has on sage-grouse viability, GYC concurs with the NTT’s 

strategy for future conservation. In order to maintain or increase sage‐grouse distribution and abundance, land managers 

must “exclude energy development and other large scale disturbances from priority habitats, and where valid existing rights 

exist, minimize those impacts by keeping disturbances to 1 per section with direct surface disturbance impacts held to 3% 

of the area or less.” (NTT, p. 21)

East Both emc0167RM

138. H. BLM and the Forest Service Must Manage Energy Corridors in a Way That Minimizes Effects to Sage-Grouse Energy 

corridors create a unique set of circumstances because they are linear and will likely cross boundaries determined as 

priority sage-grouse habitat as well as habitats occupied or suitable for sage-grouse. The agencies must develop and use 

consistent criteria and management guidelines to locate or site energy corridors, and must operate and maintain new and 

existing facilities within energy corridors in a manner that minimizes impacts to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. These 

corridors often cross jurisdictional boundaries and thus federal oversight and cooperation between states is necessary. The 

NTT recommends making exclusion areas in priority sage-grouse habitat for new right-of-way permits, and we support that 

East Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-768 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

approach. Any exceptions to that measure should be limited and only necessary when valid, existing rights are in play. 

Although we are not entirely opposed to allowing new rights-of-way co-located with existing rights-of-way, we would add 

that the project should only be permitted if human access to the project is maintained within existing disturbance areas, and

that all project impacts are limited to minimize impacts to nearby sage-grouse, including limiting noise, dust, or other 

pollution. In regard to allowing 3 percent disturbance, we are concerned that this exception would not adequately address 

habitat fragmentation issues. We support the measures to remove or bury existing power lines within priority sage-grouse 

habitat and reclaiming right-of-way sites no longer in use. We also support the measures for general sage-grouse habitat 

areas.

139. In the East where agencies say energy is the big threat to sage-grouse, important habitats in Oil and Gas were mapped away 

with the Core and Sacrifice habitat model. Plus the core scheme allows largescale intrusions by linear features, by 

transmission lines, by oil and gas wells at a “lower” density - all imposed on top of all the existing disturbances of grazing, 

roading, and existing energy development. Since many of the energy disturbances are well pads, pipelines, etc. – and linear 

or somewhat limited land disturbances, this diversionary tactic Core/Triage/Sacrifice tactic allows very significant 

development to continue. And the Footprint of the types of development that could occur – say an upgraded oil rig access 

road, or gas pipeline, or wind farm are large and extend over a vast land area. Roads = weed spread, noise, collision 

mortality. Wind = Visual intrusion over many square miles, noise over vast areas from turbines and roads, increased 

predation from powerline perches. Again here the powerline gets written off as disturbing “minimal” ground area. 

Example: China Mountain DEIS and Gateway West DEIS claims of disturbance when applied to mitigation.

East Both emc0411GB

140. Address Impacts of Development: Industrial development, whether for fossil fuels or renewable sources, has habitat 

impacts. BLM should recognize the research demonstrating impacts from roads, noise, infrastructure, and increased 

predator access, and protect priority sage-grouse habitat accordingly.

GB Both emc0355GB

141. It is critical that BLM take progressive steps to protect habitat from fragmentation and highlevel disturbance. The NTT 

report states: Existing and proposed developments for ROWs (such as powerlines, pipelines, and renewable energy 

projects) and access to various mineral claims or energy development locations have the potential to cause habitat loss and 

fragmentation that decreases habitat and population connectivity. (page 12) Because of these real threats associated with 

new energy development and transmission, BLM should adopt stringent guidelines regarding energy facility siting, that 

include large bufferzones around leks for associated nesting and early brood-rearing habitat, seasonal restrictions, advanced 

mitigation when development does occur, and no-development areas in priority habitat. In Wyoming, wind energy 

development is prohibited from core sage-grouse habitats. The 2010 Instruction Memorandum (No. WY-2010- 012), 

recommends Wyoming BLM Field Offices identify areas not available for energy development (including oil, gas, and wind) 

and leasing, and defer leasing when a lease expires; this should be incorporated into RMP modifications. This practice should 

be adopted range-wide to prevent anthropogenic disturbance in sagegrouse habitat. Summary: Industrial development, 

whether for fossil fuels or renewable sources, has habitat impacts. BLM should recognize the research demonstrating 

impacts from roads, noise, infrastructure,

GB Both emc0355GB

142. As an example of peripheral damage referenced above please consider the following. When limitations regarding siting of 

power infrastructure disallow the use of public lands for infrastructure, the path of least resistance becomes private 

GB Both emc0384GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-769

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

property. Energy companies are then forced to approach the FERC or State authorizing bodies to ask for the right of 

eminent domain for passage of their power lines or pipelines. This creates a terrible hardship on the private property 

owners who may not be compensated for anywhere near the value of the land they have lost.

143. The Nevada, Idaho, Utah, California, Oregon, Colorado sage-grouse habitats identified as "Priority" and "General" and Non 

Habitat must be overlaid on current lease and claim mapping. This is part of understanding what an area’s RFDS might be.

GB Both emc0411GB

144. New risk factors include: -Energy development and transmission infrastructure IDMT Both rmc0028GB

145. The BLM list of proposed Agency Plan amendments omits several key components of Land Use Plans and management 

activities conducted by federal agencies that must also be considered in this process. These include:Energy or other 

rights-of-way for Wind MET towers and any other energy devices or activities including oil and gas pipelines. Renewable 

energy and oil and gas development are not even listed. Communication towers, and other tall structures or developments 

are omitted. Such intrusions can have a huge Footprint ncluding visual, access roads, etc. Water pipelines and rights-of-way 

are not listed. This includes irrigation diversions that remove water from streams, ditches, and aquifer mining proposals like 

the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s massive proposed pipeline for removal/mining and export of ground water from 

desert aquifers. The SNWA aquifer mining pipeline, for example, has a host of ancillary disturbance facilities associated with 

it. Right now in Idaho and Nevada, immense communications towers are being proposed. In Idaho, a tower over 700 ft. tall 

would be placed in wintering habitat for a very small and declining population of sage-grouse also threatened by wind energy 

development.

IDMT Both emc0411GB

146. The history of the Northern Plains Resource Council shows that some farmers and ranchers are even willing to protect 

their land from energy development. If the oil boom is the greatest threat to sage grouse, then anything that encourages 

ranches to sell out must also be acknowledged as a threat.

MT-RM Both emc0013RM

147. We agree with the state wildlife agencies that a buffer preventing energy development within 4 miles of active leks is 

preferred to protect as many nests as possible. The latest assessment suggests that Keystone is likely to implement a 3-mile 

buffer instead. We recommend that this not be permitted on BLM lands within sage-grouse core areas.

MT-RM Both emc0034RM

148. On the other hand, the oil and gas companies have a documented history of destroying/raping our lands with chemicals that 

are polluting our lands, waters and air. It is beyond the scope of this letter to detail all of the findings of the land abuse these 

companies have hurled on Americans in recent years, however, if you do require details, I'll be delighted to oblige you with 

a list/document.

NVCA Both emc0019GB

149. NV Energy also expresses concern over language not allowing human disturbance to exceed 2.5% of the species' total 

habitat "regardless of surface ownership." Is it the federal agencies intent to regulate those proposed actions that are solely 

on private land? If so, where does this authority come from? NV Energy's concern is that the regulation of private lands may 

impede the development of high priority energy projects which in turn impacts Nevada rate payers.

NVCA Both emc0198GB

150. The BLM list of proposed Agency Plan amendments omits several key components of Land Use Plans and management 

activities conducted by federal agencies that must also be considered in this process. These include:Energy or other 

rights-of-way for Wind MET towers and any other energy devices or activities including oil and gas pipelines. Renewable 

energy and oil and gas development are not even listed. Communication towers, and other tall structures or developments 

NVCA Both emc0411GB
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-770 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

are omitted. Such intrusions can have a huge Footprint ncluding visual, access roads, etc. Water pipelines and rights-of-way 

are not listed. This includes irrigation diversions that remove water from streams, ditches, and aquifer mining proposals like 

the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s massive proposed pipeline for removal/mining and export of ground water from 

desert aquifers. The SNWA aquifer mining pipeline, for example, has a host of ancillary disturbance facilities associated with 

it. Right now in Idaho and Nevada, immense communications towers are being proposed. In Idaho, a tower over 700 ft. tall 

would be placed in wintering habitat for a very small and declining population of sage-grouse also threatened by wind energy 

development.

151. I have grave concerns about the rush of energy development on our high desert country in Oregon. OR Both emc0107GB

152. Finally, the BLM must consider the provisions of Utah's Senate Bill 83, passed during the 2012 General Session of the Utah 

Legislature, which established an Energy Zone for portions of Duehesne, Uintah and Daggett Counties, while also providing 

that a state sage grouse plan may be created and implemented.

UT Both emc0337GB

153. The County's energy zone should be protected for extractive activities and the highest and best habitat should be protected 

for sustainable sage-grouse populations within the county.

UT Both emc0376GB

154. In Utah, the Alton Coal Project has already eliminated a sage-grouse lek, and may destroy remaining habitat in the vicinity 

as the development expands greatly across BLM land.

UT Both fld0010rm, 

fld0010gb

155. i. Lander, WY RMP Alternative B also requires anti-perching devices to be installed on all new overhead powerlines in 

greater sage-grouse, white-tailed prairie dog, mountain plover, and pygmy rabbit habitats to reduce predation from raptors. 

In addition, the BLM will work with ROW holders to identify conflict areas and get anti-perching devices installed on 

existing overhead powerlines in these same habitats. (DEIS 882) Because approximately 74-80% of sage-grouse females nest 

within 4 miles of leks (Moynahan 2004, Holloran and Anderson 2005), this measure may help to reduce predation pressures 

on nesting and foraging grouse. We recommend the use of deterrent devices on H-frame structures because recent 

research indicates they are effective tools in reducing perch use of such structures (Lammers and Collopy 2007, Slater and 

Smith 2010). The BLM and FS should consider not only anti-perching devices to reduce raptor predation on grouse, but also 

measures (not included in the Lander RMP) that would reduce conditions (e.g., nest substrates and anthropogenic 

attractants) that enhance local raven populations, to reduce potential raven predation on sage-grouse nests. Energy 

development in undeveloped sagebrush areas has been shown to facilitate increases in the abundance of breeding ravens, 

with concomitant negative effects on nest survival of sage-grouse (Bui et al. 2010, Coates and Delehanty 2010). Raven 

predation on grouse nests may have a significantly adverse impact on local grouse populations (Coates 2007). BLM and FS 

should recommend that any newly permitted permanent, highprofile structures will be outfitted with raven deterrents.

WY Both emc0089RM

156. BLM is well aware of the dire status of sage grouse in the West and of the extensive devastating impacts to sage grouse 

habitat and populations caused by BLM permitting in the Powder River Basin. The most recent study by the University of 

Montana for the Buffalo Field Office on the population viability of sage grouse in the Powder River Basin is a strong evidence 

of how quickly uncontrolled permitting and development of federal minerals can result in the destruction and decline of 

critical sage grouse habitat and the species. BLM must heed the results of that study and implement additional actions and 

steps to conserve, protect and restore sagebrush habitat now.

WY BLM emc0129RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

May 2012 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs C-771

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

157. BLM must implement policies to protect sage-grouse habitat on private split estate lands rather than permit BLM oil and gas 

drilling underlying important sagebrush habitat on private lands. BLM must also recognize that much of the sagebrush 

habitat that has been and is being eliminated and impacted in the Powder River Basin and Wyoming is from BLM permitted 

mineral development underlying private lands. BLM cannot simply ignore the impacts their permitting actions cause to 

millions of acres of sage grouse habitat by permitting mineral activity underlying millions of acres on private split estate 

surface that provides sage grouse habitat. BLM must implement measures to protect sage grouse habitat on all lands that 

they impact by their own permitting activity regarding BLM authorized mineral development. BLM must also restrict leasing 

of oil and gas and coal resources in high quality sage grouse habitat, regardless of surface ownership.

WY BLM emc0129RM

158. BLM must require increased bonding for reclamation and implement more timely reclamation requirements to restore 

sagebrush habitat BLM has failed to hold oil and gas operators to a higher standard when it comes to requiring timely 

reclamation and establishing adequate bonding to ensure that reclamation. Landowners in Wyoming have BLM permitted 

oil and gas wells from 20 and 30 years ago that are still not reclaimed and restored. BLM has permitted thousands of CBM 

wells and associated infrastructure in the Powder River Basin that is now sitting idle and has not been reclaimed. BLM allows 

operators to let an oil and gas well and infrastructure remain idle with no reclamation for 7 years before any initial action

is taken. What is BLM doing to ensure more timely reclamation and increase bonding to ensure reclamation? How is BLM 

prioritizing reclamation of sage grouse habitat, ensuring an appropriate seed mix, vegetation cover and density 

requirements, and reestablishment of brush vegetation communities? The recent sage grouse viability study conducted for 

the Buffalo Field Office emphasized the fact that sage grouse populations will not rebound or maintain viability unless habitat 

is restored. What plans does BLM have or what policies is BLM implementing to ensure and increase reclamation?

WY BLM emc0129RM

159. In the EIS, BLM must fully disclose a comprehensive reasonably foreseeable development scenario that will allow the agency 

to analyze cumulative impacts. This analysis must include not only foreseeable extractive mineral development (resulting 

from past, present, and future leasing or mineral locating) but also the possibility of large industrial facilities such as 

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

sequestration facilities, wind energy, natural gas plants, pipelines, and a host of other activities on or near BLM lands. BLM 

should also consider non-BLM authorized activity and climatic impacts, such as drought, fire, and climate change. BLM’s 

cumulative impacts analysis should not take place in a vacuum and must completely acknowledge the variety of threats 

facing sage-grouse populations throughout Wyoming. After this reasonably foreseeable development scenario disclosure, 

BLM must then take each alternative and disclose the incremental effects or benefits of the action in terms of reducing or 

increasing impacts from the foreseeable status quo. Cumulative impacts analysis is very important because cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 40 CFR § 

1508.7. In doing this analysis, BLM must consider the landscape-scale habitat needs of sage-grouse.

WY BLM emc0129RM

160. 15) Minimize and where possible avoid impacts of energy development and infrastructure such as transmission lines, roads, 

and compressor stations on sage-grouse habitat.

WY USFS emc0144RM

161. Livestock grazing are important issues locally as is energy development in the Hoback Basin. WY USFS emc0144RM

162. As new science, information and data continue to emerge regarding populations, habitats and behaviors of the Greater WY Both emc0167RM
C. Comments by Resource Planning Issue

C-772 Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs/EISs May 2012

Scoping Summary Report

Table C-5.C

Comments Related to General Energy Development

Comment 

No.

Comment SubRegion 

ID

Agency CmtLtrCode

Sage-Grouse, the state of Wyoming must continue to re-evaluate the original "core population areas" and protective 

stipulations for Greater Sage-Grouse. Currently, the NTT report recommends greater restrictions on land uses in priority 

habitat than is required under the Wyoming state strategy. With respect to oil and gas development and coal mining, we

suggest the Wyoming state strategy and Wyoming BLM sage-grouse guidance incorporate management prescriptions 

recommended in the NTT report. Please note: from this point forward, we use the terms "priority sage-grouse habitat" and 

(Wyoming) "core area" interchangeably.

163. BCA attendance at several Sage Grouse Implementation Team meetings has shown how the Core Areas have shifted still 

farther from sage grouse protection than they were in their initial, badly flawed first draft. In the South-Central Local 

Working Group area, for example, the initial draft of Core Areas purportedly excluded only areas where existing 

development degraded key habitats, although many key habitats that were (and are) still virtually pristine were excluded 

because development was potentially planned. Then, the SGIT was instructed to revise the Core Areas, and one of the 

criteria was to exclude areas where development was permitted, but had not yet occurred. In the final analysis, lands were 

excluded where important habitats were neither extant nor permitted, but where permitting was in process but years away 

(such as the Chokecherry wind project), where permits had not yet been sought out were planned over the span of 

decades (such as APDs in the Atlantic Rim CBM project), and where mining interests were held but even the future intent 

to seek a permit was speculative (in the case of uranium claims). Not to mention a new coal-to-liquids plant proposal which 

was gerrymandered out of Core. The Sage Grouse Implementation Team plans to redraw Core Areas every 5 years, and 

has shown a willingness to exclude prime and pristine habitats from Core status on the basis of new industrial proposals. 

The result is that Core Areas have been defined simply as the lands that industry doesn’t want, where threats are a remote 

possibility. Until the next round of industrial proposals, when heretofore “protected” lands, cause further redrawing of the 

boundaries. This is lunacy, not habitat management, and somebody needs to step in and fix it. That somebody, for federally 

owned lands and minerals, should be the BLM.

WY Both emc0343GB

164. We furthermore petition the BLM and Forest Service pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) to defer all mineral sales and leasing as 

well as all project-level approvals within the bounds of the more robust Core Area boundaries we have recommended in 

these comments. The BLM has full authority and discretion to undertake this measure under IM 2004-110 Change 1, and 

doing so will preserve the decision space in the Plan Amendment process and prevent permitted actions that could 

undermine the effectiveness of alternative sage grouse Plan Amednment management direction that will be adopted at the 

end of this NEPA process.

WY Both emc0343GB

165. It is also of great concern that areas with impending oil and gas leases in Wyoming were often purposefully excluded from 

Core Area mapping. Oil and gas, geothermal leases, and wind and other rights-of-way are being gobbled up by industry and 

speculators across the West – including in areas that to date have had very little oil and gas or other energy development. 

Agencies must provide a map of all existing leases/rights-of-way – so the public and decision makers can understand the 

very large numbers of these leases that are held. Agencies must also provide detailed maps of additional areas where leasing 

is foreseeable. The same most be done for mining. This is necessary to understand the huge number of leases and claims 

that currently exist. In many areas of Nevada, for example, there is hardly an acre that does not have mine claims, and 

increasingly does not have geothermal or oil and gas leases. And we wonder - can multiple kinds of leases occur, one on top 

of another, in the same landscapes?

WY Both emc0411GB