Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

APPENDIX M—FOREST SERVICE BIOLOGICAL 

EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT INDICATOR 

SPECIES REPORT

1
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Forest Service Biological Evaluation

for the

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort to 

Amend the Bridger-Teton and Medicine Bow 

National Forest Plans and the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland Management Plan

May 13 17, 2015

Prepared by

Tim Byer, Wildlife Biologist

tbyer@fs.fed.us

Steve Loose, Wildlife Biologist

sloose@fs.fed.us

Katharine Haynes, Botanist

katharinemhaynes@fs.fed.us

Chris Colt, Wildlife Biologist

ccolt@fs.fed.us

2
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 11

II. PROJECT HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 12

III. PURPOSE AND NEED..................................................................................................... 13

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES.................................................................... 14

Alternative A: No-Action.......................................................................................................... 15

Alternative B: ............................................................................................................................ 15

Alternative C: ............................................................................................................................ 15

Alternative D:............................................................................................................................ 16

Proposed Amendment (Selected Alternative):.......................................................................... 16

V. ANALYSIS AREA.................................................................................................................. 16

VI. SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS.................................................................... 17

FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES ............................................................................ 17

VII. SPECIES INFORMATION AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS .................................................. 39

A. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) ............................................................. 39

Distribution............................................................................................................................ 39

Habitat Associations and Threats.......................................................................................... 40

Population Status and Trend.................................................................................................. 42

Key Threats by Forest............................................................................................................ 49

Evaluating Viability............................................................................................................... 50

Alternative Comparison......................................................................................................... 51

Alternative A - No Action ..................................................................................................... 52

Alternative B.......................................................................................................................... 60

Alternative C.......................................................................................................................... 62

Alternative D ......................................................................................................................... 65

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative).............................................................. 67

B. Sagebrush Associated Species.............................................................................................. 76

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis).................................................................................. 77

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) ........................................................................................ 78

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)........................................................................................ 79

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus).......................................................................................... 80

3
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) ............................................................................. 81

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza bellii).......................................................................................... 81

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella brewerii).................................................................................... 82

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) ............................................. 82

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis canadensis).......................................... 83

White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus)........................................................................ 84

Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius) ..................................................................... 85

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)..................................................................................... 85

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)........................................................ 86

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) ....................................................................................... 87

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) .............................................................................................. 88

Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas).......................................................................................... 88

Alternative A - No Action ..................................................................................................... 89

Alternative B.......................................................................................................................... 92

Alternative C.......................................................................................................................... 94

Alternative D ......................................................................................................................... 97

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative).............................................................. 99

C. Grassland Associated Species...................................................................................... 102

Mixed Grass Prairie ............................................................................................................. 103

Short-Grass Prairie .............................................................................................................. 103

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) .............................................................. 103

Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) ..................................................................................................... 104

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ...................................................................... 105

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).................................................................................. 105

Chestnut-Collared Longspur (Calicarius ornatus).............................................................. 106

McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii) ....................................................................... 107

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)............................................................................ 108

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)............................................................ 109

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 111

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 113

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 115

4
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 118

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 120

D. Plants............................................................................................................................ 124

Astragalus barrii (Barr’s milkvetch).................................................................................... 124

Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius (Meadow milkvetch) ........................................ 125

Astragalus paysonii (Payson’s milkvetch) .......................................................................... 125

Lesquerella paysonii (Payson’s bladderpod)....................................................................... 126

Symphyotrichum molle (Soft aster)...................................................................................... 126

Eriogonum exifolium (Dropleaf {slender leaved} buckwheat) ........................................... 127

Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Colorado tansy aster) ...................................................... 127

Triteleia grandiflora (Largeflower Triteleia)...................................................................... 128

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 128

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 131

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 133

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 136

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 139

VIII. CONTACTS................................................................................................................. 143

IX. LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 143

I. MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES: INTRODUCTION ........................................ 152

II. MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES – EFFECTS ANALYSIS............................ 158

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) ............................................................... 158

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 158

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 158

Population Status and Trend................................................................................................ 159

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 162

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 165

Alternative C Direct and Indirect Impacts........................................................................... 167

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 170

Proposed Plan Amendment ................................................................................................. 172

Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)....................................................... 176

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 176

5
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 176

Population Status and Trend................................................................................................ 176

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 177

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 179

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 181

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 183

Proposed Plan Amendment ................................................................................................. 185

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus).................................................................. 187

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 188

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 188

Population Status, Trend, and Relationship to Habitat Change .......................................... 188

Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 189

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 189

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 191

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 193

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 196

Proposed Plan Amendment ................................................................................................. 198

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella brewerii) ..................................................................................... 200

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 200

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 201

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat Trend.................................................... 201

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 202

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 205

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 207

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 210

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 212

Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) ...................................................................... 215

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 215

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 215

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat Trend.................................................... 216

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 217

6
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 219

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 222

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 224

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 227

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) ......................................................................................... 230

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 230

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 230

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat Trend.................................................... 230

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 231

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 234

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 236

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 238

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 241

Moose (Alces alces shiras)...................................................................................................... 244

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 244

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 244

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat Trend.................................................... 244

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 245

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 248

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 250

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 252

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 255

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana)......................................................................... 258

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 258

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 258

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat .............................................................. 259

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 259

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 262

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 265

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 267

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 269

7
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas).................................................................................... 273

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 273

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 273

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat .............................................................. 273

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 274

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 277

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 279

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 282

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 284

Populus tremuloides (Aspen).................................................................................................. 288

Distribution.......................................................................................................................... 288

Habitat Associations and Threats........................................................................................ 288

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat .............................................................. 288

Alternative A - No Action ................................................................................................... 289

Alternative B........................................................................................................................ 292

Alternative C........................................................................................................................ 294

Alternative D ....................................................................................................................... 296

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)............................................................ 299

III. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 302

IV. LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................................... 304

APPENDIX 1.............................................................................................................................. 308

8
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Acronyms

BA biological assessment 

BE biological evaluation

BT Bridger-Teton National Forest 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

COA condition of approval

COT Conservation Objectives Team 

DDTC Density Disturbance Calculation Tool

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FEIS final environmental impact statement 

Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture National Forest Service

FSM Forest Service Manual 

GA geographic area

GH or PGH general habitat

GHMA general habitat management areas 

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse 

IM Instruction Memorandum

LRMP land and resource management plan 

LUP land use plan 

MB Medicine Bow 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NTT National Technical Team 

PH or PPH priority habitat

PHMA priority habitat management areas 

ROW right-of-way 

SFA sagebrush focal areas 

SIA Special Interest Area

SUA special use authorization

9
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

T&Cs terms and conditions

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

10
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to identify the likely effects of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (GRSG; Centrocercus urophasianus) land management planning decision for 

Regional Forester-listed sensitive species on the following:

• Bridger-Teton National Forest (BT) in Forest Service Intermountain Region (Region 4)

• Medicine Bow National Forest (MB; Region 2)

• Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) in the Rocky Mountain Region (R2)

Regional Forester lists of sensitive species can include: plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, 

reptiles, fish, and invertebrates.

This BE addresses sensitive species that meet the following criteria:

1) Species that are known to occur on the units based on confirmed sightings

2) Species that may occur on the units based on reliable unconfirmed sightings

3) Species that may occur on the units based on the presence of potential habitat

Forest Service Policy—The Forest Service has developed policy regarding the designation of 

plant and animal species (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2670; Supplement 2600-94-2). The 

Regional Forester's sensitive species list contains taxa only when they meet one or more of the 

following three criteria:

1) The species is declining in numbers or occurrences and evidence indicates it could be 

proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse 

or stop the downward trend.

2) The species’ habitat is declining and continued loss could result in population declines 

that lead to federal listing as threatened or endangered if action is not taken to reverse 

or stop the decline.

3) The species’ population or habitat is stable but limited. 

Forest Service Objectives—Under FSM 2672.41, the objectives for completing BEs for proposed 

Forest Service programs or activities are as follows: 

1) To ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to the loss of viability of any 

native or desired nonnative plant or contribute to animal species or trends toward 

federal listing as sensitive by Forest Service R2

2) To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that actions of 

federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed 

species

3) To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-making 

process

4) To enhance opportunities for mitigation

11
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

A separate biological assessment (BA) will analyze impacts of the Alternatives on threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species and meet items 2 and 3 directly above.

FSM 2670.22 #2 regarding objectives for sensitive species states “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.”

FSM 2600, Section 2671.44 (Supplement 2600-94-2) provides direction on the review of actions 

and programs authorized, funded, or implemented by the Forest Service relative to the 

requirements of the ESA. 

Forest Service Interim Recommendations—On October 9, 2012, the Forest Service Washington 

Office issued Interim Conservation Recommendations for the Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat (a supplement to the Forest Service GRSG recommendations issued July 1, 

2010). This interim direction promotes conservation of sustainable GRSG populations and their 

habitats and applies to proposed Forest Service actions in all identified GRSG habitats. 

The recommendations incorporate the following principles to protect and conserve GRSG 

habitat: 

• Protect remaining unfragmented habitats

• Minimize further loss of fragmented habitat

• Enhance and restore habitat conditions to meet GRSG life history needs

These recommendations apply to 20 Forest Service units involved in the current land and 

resource management plan (LRMP) amendment process for GRSG management. They are 

applicable until interim directives from the Forest Service are adopted or until the amendment for 

the LRMP unit is completed. This document evaluates these LRMP amendments on the BT, the 

MB, and the TBNGTBNG. It does not include the interim recommendations since they will be 

terminated with the completion of these amendments.

II. PROJECT HISTORY

GRSG has emerged as a significant conservation concern over the last 10 years. It is a candidate 

for listing under the ESA due to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

determination in 2010 that listing was “warranted, but precluded due to higher priorities” (75 FR 

13910 [March 23, 2010]). The two primary factors that warranted the species to be listed as 

threatened the large-scale loss and fragmentation of habitats across the species range and a lack 

of regulatory mechanisms to ensure its conservation. 

The primary threats to GRSG habitat are summarized in the listing decision (Federal Register 

75[55]: 13910-14014). The two dominant threats are infrastructure associated with energy 

development in the eastern portion of the species range and conversion of sagebrush 

12
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

communities to annual grasslands from large uncharacteristic wildfires in the western portion of 

the species range.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately half of the occupied GRSG 

habitats, whereas the Forest Service manages approximately 8 percent, with most of that 

occurring on national forests in the Intermountain Region. The Forest Service manages 

approximately 9 million acres of sagebrush habitats, about 7.5 million acres of which occur in 

the Intermountain Region. Forest Service-administered lands contribute mostly to summer 

brood-rearing habitats, although some forests and grasslands do contribute important breeding, 

nesting, and winter habitat.

In 2011 and 2012, the USFWS submitted letters to the BLM and Forest Service recommending 

the agencies amend land use plans (LUPs) to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve GRSG. Originally, this recommendation identified 10 National Forests viewed as high 

priority to ensure appropriate regulatory mechanisms. Following scoping and discussion, the 

Forest Service added 10 Forest Plans that would be considered for amendment. The Forest 

Service and BLM are participating in several joint environmental impact statements (EISs) to 

develop records of decision to amend LUPs, including LRMPs. 

Since half of all GRSG habitat occurs on BLM-administered lands, the BLM is leading the effort 

to amend or revise LUPs, with the Forest Service as a cooperating agency. Together, they will

provide direction to conserve and protect GRSG habitat and to assure the USFWS that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms are in place to ensure the conservation of the species. The two agencies 

will complete EISs for the following GRSG planning sub-regions: 1) eastern Montana and 

portions of North and South Dakota, 2) Idaho and southwest Montana, 3) Oregon, 4) Wyoming, 

5) northwest Colorado, 6) Utah, and 7) Nevada and northern California. 

The Forest Service is participating in six of these EISs (excluding eastern Montana/the Dakotas 

and some of the areas in Wyoming). The EISs will include joint agency signatures, but separate 

Records of Decision. (http://fsweb.r4.fs.fed.us/unit/nr/sagegrouse/index.shtml)

This report supports the Wyoming 9-Plan Final EIS (FEIS). The Forest Service will amend the 

BT, MB, and TBNG LRMPs for the GRSG.

III. PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the LRMP amendment for the GRSG is to identify and incorporate appropriate 

conservation measures to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, 

and minimizing threats to their habitat. The need to create this amendment arose when the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a significant threat in the USFWS’s

finding on the petition to list the GRSG. The USFWS identified conservation measures in Forest 

Service LRMPs (as well as BLM resource management plans) as the principal regulatory 

mechanisms for habitat conservation. Therefore, the LRMP amendment focuses on areas 

13
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

affected by threats to GRSG habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision 

(USFWS 2010).

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The BLM and Forest Service developed a range of alternatives specifically structured to identify 

and incorporate measures into LUPs to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, 

eliminating, and minimizing threats to that habitat. Five alternatives are considered in this 

analysis: Alternative A, the No Action alternative, and four action alternatives. The action 

alternatives are based on national GRSG policy, public comments, Wyoming statewide GRSG

management, the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report, and the National Technical 

Team (NTT) Conservation Measures Report (Instruction Memorandum [IM]-2012-044). The 

alternatives establish a framework for analyzing impacts from management decisions. The 

alternatives represent approaches to managing GRSG habitat and activities consistent with law, 

regulation, and policy. These are summarized below with a more detailed description to follow. 

For the full matrix of the Alternatives, see Chapter 2 of the FEIS.

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, reflects current management direction contained in the 

Forest Service LRMP that is associated with the protection of GRSG and its habitat. Alternative 

B is based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT in IM-2012-044. Alternative C is 

based on the citizen groups recommended alternative which emphasizes improving and 

protecting habitat for GRSG and is applied to all occupied GRSG habitat. Alternative D provides 

opportunities to use and develop the planning area while protecting GRSG habitat based on 

scoping comments and input from agencies involved in the Alternatives development process. 

The final alternative, the Forest Service Proposed Plan Amendment is the preferred alternative 

(Proposed Plan Amendment) and incorporates the guidance from Forest Service interim 

direction, BLM IM WY-2010-012, the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-

05), and additional management based on the NTT’s recommendations. 

A brief description of each Alternative is provided below. For a full description, as well as 

project design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring requirements, please refer to Chapter 2 of the 

EIS.

One key difference among the Alternatives is the type of designated habitat applicable to each.

Designated GRSG habitat is divided into main categories—core, connectivity, and general 

habitat—and for the Proposed Plan Amendment—sagebrush focal areas (SFAs). Core habitat is 

defined as areas that have the highest conservation value to maintain sustainable GRSG 

populations. These areas are breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas. 

General habitat is defined as areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of core 

habitat. Connectivity habitat is important GRSG habitat that links core area habitats. Sagebrush 

focal areas (Proposed Plan Amendment) are the most important breeding and nesting habitat. 

14
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative A: No-Action

Alternative A continues present management within each BLM and Forest Service unit. Ongoing 

programs initiated under existing legislation, regulations, and the LUPs would continue, even as 

new plans are developed or new planning is being conducted for the planning area. Alternative A 

describes current resource and land use management direction that is proposed to be revised or 

supplemented by some or all of the action alternatives. This management differs at times 

between BLM and Forest Service offices. Alternative A represents the baseline to which the 

other alternatives and their associated analyses and impacts are compared. Alternative A uses the 

terms “greater sage-grouse core habitat” (or “core areas”), as described in the Wyoming 

Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5 (WY EO 2011-5); these terms are defined in this 

document’s glossary as habitat that is most important for GRSG. Management actions proposed 

under Alternative A are presented in Tables 2-1, 2-5 (land use restrictions), 2-6, and 2-7 (oil and 

gas leasing stipulations).

Alternative B: 

Alternative B is based on conservation measures developed by the NTT in the BLM IM WO2012-044. As directed in the IM, all BLM state and field offices that contain occupied GRSG 

habitat must analyze the conservation measures developed by the NTT through the land use 

planning process and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under this alternative, a 

land surface disturbance cap of up to 3 percent per 640 acres will be considered in GRSG PHMA

(PHMA). In areas where the disturbance cap has been reached, the BLM/Forest Service will

consider opportunities for reclaiming or removing surface-disturbing features that are no longer 

in use; this would be done to reduce the current disturbance before further projects are permitted. 

This alternative considers incorporating a light grazing strategy. It calls for using a 20 to 30

percent forage allocation for livestock allotments not meeting standards due to livestock grazing 

in GRSG. Alternative B uses the term “GRSG PH” and general habitat (GH), as described in 

BLM IM WO-2012-044 and defined in this document’s glossary is combined core habitat and 

connectivity habitat. Management actions proposed under Alternative B are presented in Tables

2-1, 2-5 (land use restrictions), 2-6, and 2-7 (oil and gas leasing stipulations). Alternative B is not 

strictly based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT. 

Alternative C: 

Alternative C emphasizes improvement and protection of all occupied GRSG habitat. It limits 

commodity development in occupied GRSG habitat and would close or designate portions of the 

planning area to some land uses. A surface disturbance cap of 3 percent per 640 acres is 

considered within GRSG PH. This alternative considers closing GRSG PHMA to livestock 

grazing. Alternative C uses the term GRSG PHMA and GH, as described in BLM IM WO-2012-

044 and defined in this document’s glossary. PHMA is the combination of core habitat and 

connectivity habitat. Management actions proposed under Alternative C are presented in Tables

2-1, 2-5 (land use restrictions), 2-6, and 2-7 (oil and gas leasing stipulations).

15
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative D: 

Alternative D provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while protecting

GRSG habitat. It is based on scoping comments and input from cooperating agencies involved in 

developing the alternatives. This alternative increases the potential for development and resource 

use and reduces GRSG habitat protections; protective measures would be applied to GRSG 

habitat. Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 9 percent per 640 acres is considered 

within GRSG priority core habitat. Alternative D uses the terms GRSG core habitat or core areas 

and GH, as described in WY EO 2011-5 and defined in this document’s glossary. Management 

actions proposed under Alternative D are presented in Tables 2-1, 2-5 (land use restrictions), 2-6, 

and 2-7 (oil and gas leasing stipulations).

Proposed Amendment (Selected Alternative): 

The Proposed Plan Amendment incorporates the guidance from the Forest Service Interim 

Direction, BLM Interim Direction (IM WY-2010-012), the Wyoming Governor’s Executive 

Order (WY EO 2011-05), the USFWS’s COT report and the NTT’s recommendations. This 

alternative emphasizes managing GRSG seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity 

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

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

Team’s Core Population Area strategy and the Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05). 

In the Forest Service proposed plan amendment, three management areas are described: PHMA, 

SFAs, and general habitat management areas (GHMA). The Proposed Plan Amendment differs 

from Alternatives A through D in the distribution of land in these management areas on National 

Forest System (Forest Service) lands. Approximately 145,486 acres of habitat managed as 

general habitat under Alternatives A through D are proposed to be managed as core habitat 

(83,263 acres) or connectivity habitat (62,223 acres) in the Proposed Plan Amendment. The 

management described in Table 2.1 for core and connectivity management areas includes these 

“proposed core” and “proposed connectivity” management areas. Maps 2-8, 2-13, 2-18, 2-27 23, 

2-28, and 2-33 display the locations of core, proposed core, connectivity, proposed connectivity, 

and GHMA for the Proposed Amendment. Specific acres of other land use restrictions by 

Alternative, including the proposed plan, are presented in Appendix 1 of this document.

Under the Proposed Amendment Alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 5 percent per 640 

acres is considered within GRSG PHMA and SFA. Management actions proposed under the 

Proposed Plan Amendment are presented in Tables 2-1, 2-8 (land use restrictions), 2-9, and 2-10 

(oil and gas leasing stipulations). The acres of land use restrictions by Alternative are presented 

in Appendix 1 of this document.

V. ANALYSIS AREA

The analysis areas consist of the BT National Forest, MB National Forest, and TB National 

Grassland that have been identified as GRSG habitat. Table 1 identifies the amount of GRSG 

16
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

core, general, and connectivity habitat by management unit. The amount of GRSG habitat varies 

considerably among the units.

Table 1. Existing GRSG Habitat by Management Unit (Acres) (Percent of Total Acres).

Management Unit

Total Unit 

Area

Priority Core 

Habitat

Priority

Connectivity 

Habitat General Habitat

Bridger-Teton 3,400,000 5,933 (1.7) 0 324,243 (9.5)

Medicine Bow 1,262,325 5,019 (0.4) 0 22635 (1.8)

Thunder Basin 553,864 217,768 (39.2) 6,356 336,096 (60.7)

VI. SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES

A BA has been prepared on the selected Alternative developed for the Record of Decision 

(ROD) included with the FEIS for this project. The BA conforms to the legal requirements set 

forth under section 7 of the ESA (19 US Code 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14). Section 

7(a) (1) of the ESA requires federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of 

listed species. Section 7(a) (2) requires that federal agencies ensure any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally-listed species, 

destroy, or adversely modify designated critical habitat. A BA must be prepared to evaluate the 

potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species for federal actions. The contents of 

the BA are at the discretion of the federal agency and will depend on the nature of the federal 

action (50 CFR 402.12(f)). 

Species identified by the USFWS as ‘candidate’ species have no ESA protections except Forest 

Service policy. They are designated as Regional Forester ‘sensitive species’ and afforded special 

management attention by the Forest Service. They are analyzed in this BE for the FEIS and 

discussed in the sensitive species section of this report if they occur on one of the Forest Service 

units. 

FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES

The R2 and 4 sensitive species lists are composed of: plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, fish, 

and invertebrates identified for each Region. Staff conducted a review for sensitive species that 

may occur or be affected by activities associated with the Planning EIS and subsequent plan 

amendments for the GRSG. Information on existing occurrences as well as known or potential 

habitat was reviewed. Sources of information contained in this database include Forest Service 

records and files, the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department information, and published research.

17
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

The Forest Service, R2 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Program has developed a 

Technical Conservation Assessment program to assist Forest Service wildlife biologists and 

others in conducting project impact analysis on many of R2 Sensitive Species. These 

Assessments produced by the Rocky Mountain Region’s (R2) Species Conservation Project are

intended to serve a variety of purposes. Ultimately, they are a component of a broad science 

platform being developed to reshape planning and management of national forests into one that 

is strategic in nature and founded on scientific knowledge of sound ecosystem principles. Species 

Conservation Assessments are intended to stand alone as premier conservation resources for

approximately 225 species. They also provide input to a process that synthetically marries 

ecological processes and conditions with the needs of species to lay a foundation for 

ecologically-based forest management. (R2 Species Conservation Assessment Project websiteproject background).

Where available these assessments are the first source and primary reference for this analysis. 

Due to their size they will not be restated completely in this analysis, but they have been used 

extensively. They can be found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments.

Table 3 is a list of R2 and Region 4 (R4) Forest Service sensitive species. Threatened, 

endangered, and proposed species are addressed separately in the BA prepared for this project.

All of the species in Table 2 were considered for this analysis and they were compared to the five

criteria listed below. The criteria was used to identify species that would experience “no impact” 

from the implementation of the action Alternatives and could, therefore, be eliminated from 

detailed analysis. These numerical categories below are referred to in Table 3:

1. Analysis area is outside the species’ range.

2. Potential habitat for the species does not exist within GRSG habitat (sagebrush-steppe) or 

is outside the elevation range of the GRSG. 

3. The type or intensity of the activity in the proposed action is expected to have no 

impact/effect on these species or their habitat.

4. Individual animals may be: accidental, dispersing, migrating, happenstance, vagrant, 

nomadic or opportunistic visitors to the habitat(s) impacted by the proposal; however, no 

affiliation or dependence on these habitat(s) has been shown.

5. The associated conservation design or mitigations eliminate any potential for impact on the 

species.

Species in Table 3 that are likely to occur within or near the analysis area or within potential 

habitat in or near the analysis area and may be affected negatively or positively, directly, 

indirectly and/or cumulatively by implementation of an action Alternative if it would be carried 

forward into Table 4, a more detailed analysis of the project effects would be subsequently be 

conducted.

The Analysis of the Management Situation for this GRSG amendment originally evaluated a 

number of species for consideration in the analysis process. Subsequent review of the 

18
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternatives indicates that several of these species originally thought to be affected will not 

experience effects on their primary habitat or populations. No Alternative is expected to impact 

any identified limiting factors for these species or their life requirements. Based on these factors, 

the following species will not be analyzed in greater detail:

• Birds: peregrine falcon

• Fish: lake chub, Plains minnow, Northern redbelly dace, Southern redbelly dace, 

finescale dace, flathead chub 

• Amphibians: Columbia spotted frog, boreal chorus frog, and Northern leopard frog

Habitat for several species overlapped with GRSG habitat on some planning units but not on 

other planning units. For example, habitat for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep overlapped with 

GRSG habitat on the MB in FS Region 2 but not on the BT in FS Region 4 (Moreno 2012). 

Therefore, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep was analyzed only as a Region 2 Sensitive Species. 

Similarly, spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat habitats overlap with GRSG habitat on the 

MB and TBNG but not the BT (Moreno 2012).

19
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 3. Forest Service Regions 2 and 4 sensitive species occurring or potentially occurring on the BT, MB, or TBNGTBNG that may be influenced by 

an action Alternative and further analyzed in this document.

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Forest Service Regions 2 and 4 Sensitive Species

MAMMALS (13)

Bighorn Sheep

Ovis canadensis

High elevation alpine habitats with steep 

escape terrain adjacent to open foraging areas 

during summer. Habitat overlap on MB.

There is no habitat association with sagegrouse on the BT (Moreno 2012).

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Fisher

Martes pennanti

Extensive, mature to old-growth spruce-fir 

forests with high levels of canopy closure on 

BT.

N 2 No impact

American marten

Martes americana SF and LPP N 2 No impact

Spotted Bat 

Euderma 

maculatum

Desert scrub to coniferous forest most often 

in low deserts and juniper woodlands. 

Forages over meadows, along forest edges, or 

in open coniferous woodlands. Habitat 

overlap on MB and TBNG. Habitats are not 

known to occur within the project area, and 

there is little potential for habitat associations 

with sage-grouse on the BT (Moreno 2012).

Y See detailed analysis 

below

20
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Townsend’s 

Western Big-eared 

Bat Corynorhinus 

townsendii

Strongly correlated with the availability of 

caves and abandoned mines for roosts. 

Habitat overlap on MB and TBNG. Caves 

and abandoned mines that provide habitat for 

this species are not known to occur within the 

project area, and there is little potential for 

habitat associations with GRSG on the BT 

(Moreno 2012).

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Fringed myotis

Myotis thysanodes

Forages in PP, oak, shrublands, pinyonjuniper on MB and TBNG. Y See detailed analysis 

below

Hoary bat

Lasiurus cinereus

Conifer forest woodland on MB and SS areas 

on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

Pygmy shrew

Sorex hoyi Wetland edges in SF above 9000 feet on MB. N 1 No impact

Black-tailed prairie 

dog Cynomys 

ludovicianus

Grasslands on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis 

below

White-tailed 

prairie dog

Cynomys leucurus

Colony at Six-Mile/Platte River on MB. Y See detailed analysis 

below

Swift fox

Vulpes velox Grasslands on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

Wyoming pocket 

gopher

Thomomys clusius

SS and grassland near MB. Y See detailed analysis 

below

21
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

River otter

Lontra canadensis Rivers on MB. N 2 No impact

BIRDS (32)

American bittern

Botaurus 

lentiginosus

Marshes on TBNG. N 3 No impact

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Lakes and rivers N 4 No impact

Greater SageGrouse

Centrocercus 

urophasianus

(C)

Sagebrush and diverse native grass and forb 

understory. Y See detailed analysis below

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis SS and grassland on MB and TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

American 

Peregrine Falcon 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

Vertical cliff habitat preferentially near high 

avian prey populations on BT, MB, and 

TBNG.

Y 4 No impact

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

Grassland, marsh, and SS near water,

<2400m on MB and TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

22
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Columbian sharptailed grouse

T. phasianellus 

columbianus

MS west of Continental Divide on MB. Y See detailed analysis 

below

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

Mature forests with large trees, relatively 

closed canopies, and open understories for 

nesting. Foraging areas include forests with a 

high density of large trees interspersed with 

shrublands and openings. Habitat overlap on 

BT.

Y See detailed analysis 

below

White-tailed 

ptarmigan

Lagopus leucurus

Alpine willow currently considered extirpated 

on the MB. N 1,2 No impact

Short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

SS, grasslands, and marshes might occur only 

on the Laramie Peak unit of MB. Y See detailed analysis below

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia Grasslands on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

Lewis’ 

woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis

PP occurs on the Laramie Peak unit of MB. N 2 No impact

Black-backed 

woodpecker

Picoides arcticus

SF and PP and recently burned conifer forest 

on MB. N 2 No impact

23
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Contopus borealis

SF, LP, WET, FM on MB. N 2 No impact

Purple martin

Progne subis

AS in specific area on west side of 

Continental Divide on MB. N 2 No impact

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius 

ludovicianus

Grassland with shrubs <8000 feet on MB and

TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

Brewer’s sparrow

Spizella breweri SS on MB and TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

Grasshopper 

Sparrow

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Grasslands on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis 

below

Sage sparrow

Amphispiza bellii SS below 6500 feet on MB and TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

McCown’s 

longspur Calcarius 

mccownii

Grasslands on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis 

below

Chestnut-collared 

longspur Calcarius 

ornatus

Grasslands on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis 

below

Boreal Owl

Aegolius funereus

Large expanses of contiguous forests that are 

typically structurally complex Engelmann 

spruce/subalpine fir forest types.

N 2 No impact

24
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Great Gray Owl

Strix nebulosa

Dense coniferous forest types usually 

associated with mature or old growth Douglas 

fir for nesting on BT.

N 2 No impact

Flammulated owl 

Otus flammeolus

Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir stands mixed 

with aspen on BT and MB. N 2 No impact

Three-toed 

Woodpecker

Picoides 

tridactylus

Mixed conifer forests of lodgepole pine, 

Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and 

subalpine fir; large numbers of recently killed 

trees provide the best habitat. *GRSG general 

habitat boundary on BT broadly includes this 

conifer habitat, but there is no habitat 

association with GRSG.

N 2 No impact

Harlequin duck 

Histronicus 

histronicus

Low gradient streams with dense shrubs, 

braided channels, swift currents, and

abundant aquatic insects on BT. 

N 2 No impact

Trumpeter Swan 

Cyngnus 

buccinator

Wide variety of freshwater ponds, lakes and 

occasionally rivers; areas with abundant and 

diverse communities of aquatic plants on BT.

N 2 No impact

Common loon

Gavia immer

Breeding habitat includes secluded, clearwater lakes more than 10 acres in size located 

between 6-8,000feet elevation on BT.

N 2 No impact

Long-billed curlew 

Numenius 

americanus

Grasslands on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis 

below

25
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Mountain plover 

Charadrius 

montanus

Grassland habitat overlap on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis 

below

Black tern 

Chlidonias niger Wetlands on TBNG. Y 3 No impact

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS (4)

Columbia spotted 

frog

Rana luteiventris

Subalpine forests, grasslands, and sagebrush 

habitats at elevations from 1,700 feet to 6,400 

feet on BT. Y 3 No impact

Boreal Toad 

Bufo boreas

Montane forests between 7,000 feet and 

12,000 feet elevation. Adults are primarily 

terrestrial and have been observed in a variety 

of habitats including sagebrush on BT.

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Northern leopard

frog

Lithobates pipiens

Wide variety aquatic habitats and wetlands on 

MB. Y 3 No impact.

Wood frog

Lithobates pipiens

Sedge, grass meadows, willow hummocks, 

aspen, lodgepole forests, and woodlands on 

MB.

N 1 No impact

FISH (13)

Bonneville 

Cutthroat Trout 

Oncorhynchus 

clarki utah

Native to Salt Creek and Smith Fork 

drainages of the Bear River system on BT. N 3 No impact.

26
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Colorado River 

Cutthroat Trout 

Oncorhynchus 

clarki pleuriticus

Native to the Green River drainage on BT and 

Little Snake on MB. N 3 No impact

Northern 

Leatherside 

Lepidomeda copei

Native to Bear Creek and Snake River 

drainages on the Kemmerer, Greys River, and 

Jackson Ranger Districts on BT.

N 3 No impact

Yellowstone/Snak

e River finespotted cutthroat 

Oncorhynchus 

clarki spp

Native to the Yellowstone and Snake River 

systems on the Jackson and Buffalo Ranger 

Districts on BT.

N 3 No impact

Mountain sucker

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus

Clear, cold creeks, small to medium-sized 

rivers with sand, gravel, and rubble substrate 

on MB,

N 3 No impact

Hornyhead chub

Nocomis biguttatus

Isolated populations in the Laramie and North 

Laramie rivers on MB, N 3 No impact

Lake chub

Couesius plumbeus

Permanent spring flow usually at the 

headwaters of small streams on TBNG, Y 3 No impact

Plains minnow

Hybognathus 

placitus

Great Plains streams with fluctuating stream 

flows and shifting sand substrates on TBNG. Y 3 No impact

Sturgeon chub

Macrhybopsis 

gelida

Great Plains rivers on TBNG. N 3 No impact

27
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Northern redbelly 

dace Phoxinus eos

Permanent spring seeps usually at the extreme 

headwaters of small streams. Y 3 No impact

Southern redbelly 

dace Phoxinus 

erythrogaster

Streams and ponds clear with sand and silt 

substrates. Y 3 No impact

Finescale dace

Phoxinus neogaeus

Permanent spring seeps usually at the extreme 

headwaters of small streams on TBNG. Y 3 No impact

Flathead chub

Platygobio gracilis

Big Horn, Tongue, Powder, Little Powder, 

Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne river systems 

on TBNG.

Y 3 No impact

INSECTS (1)

Hudsonian 

emerald

Somatochlora 

hundsonica

Boggy ponds on MB. N 2 No impact

PLANTS (49)

Pink agoseris

Agoseris 

lackschewitzii

Wet meadow habitat without a sagebrush 

component on BT. N 1 No impact

Sweet-flowered 

rock jasmine

Androsace 

chamaejasme ssp. 

carinata

Exposed rocky ridge crests and slopes with 

rock outcrops and thin soils of limestone or 

dolomite substrate at 8,500 to 10,800 feet

elevation on BT.

N 1 No impact

28
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Barr’s milkvetch

Astragalus barrii

In badland islands in sagebrush and grassland 

matrices. 3,500-6,700 feet on TBNG. Y See detailed analysis below

Meadow milkvetch

Astragalus 

diversifolius var. 

diversifolius

Moist, often alkaline meadows and swales in 

sagebrush valleys at 4,400 to 6,300 feet

elevation often described as a playa 

vegetation type on BT.

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Astragalus jejunus 

var. jejunus 

Starveling 

milkvetch

Dry barren ridges and bluffs of shale and 

stone, clay, or cobblestones at 6,000 to 7,100 

feet elevation on BT

N 1 No impact

Astragalus 

paysonii Payson's 

milkvetch

Disturbed areas on sandy soils that have a low 

cover of forbs and grasses at elevations of 

5,850 to 9,600 feet which often occur as a 

mosaic component of sage shrublands on BT.

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Aquilegia 

laramiensis

Laramie 

columbine

Crevices in north facing granite boulders 

6,250-8,000 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Astragalus 

leptaleus

park milkvetch

Willow carrs/sedge-grass transition to shrub 

8,800 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Botrychium lineare

narrowleaf 

moonwort

Grass, stream, forest edges, and upland 

habitats 0 feet -10,500 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

29
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Carex diandra

lesser panicled 

sedge

Peatland-fens and pond edge 6,100 to 8,600 

feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Carex 

incurviformis

Seaside sedge

Alpine and subalpine moist tundra and wet 

rock ledges 10,000 to 12,200 feet elevation on 

BT.

N 1 No impact

Carex livida

livid sedge

Floating mats, bogs, fens, and marls with 

Carex, hummocks 9,000 to 10,000 feet on 

MB.

N 2 No impact

Carex luzulina var. 

atropurpurea 

Black and purple 

sedge 

Subalpine wet meadows and stream sides at 

10,000 to 10,600 feet elevations on BT. N 1 No impact

Cypripedium 

parviflorum

lesser yellow 

lady’s slipper

Mossy woods, streams, and bogs (13,120 –

20,992 feet on MB N 2 No impact

Wyoming 

tansymustard 

Descurainia 

torulosa 

Southern Absaroka Range and the Rock 

Springs Uplift. Sandy soil at the base of cliffs 

composed of volcanic breccia or sandstone, 

under slight overhangs, in cavities in the 

volcanic rock, or on ledges 7,700 to 10,500 

feet on BT.

N 1 No impact

30
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Draba 

exunguiculata

Clawless draba 

(Gray’s peak 

draba)

Alpine fell fields 10,000 feet+ on MB. N 2 No impact

Draba globosa 

Rockcress draba 

Moist, gravelly alpine meadows and talus 

slopes often on limestone-derived soils from 

8,100 to 12,400 feet on BT.

N 1 No impact

Draba grayana

Gray’s draba Alpine fell fields >10,000 feet on MB. N 1 No impact.

Drosera 

rotundifolia

roundleaf sundew

Acid fens, float mats, and bogs 9,100 to 9,800 

feet on MB. N 1 No impact

Eleocharis 

elliptica

Elliptic spike rush 

(boreal spike rush)

Thermal seeps/springs and stock ponds 6,200 

to 7,250 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Ericameria 

discoidea var. 

linearis

Narrowleaf 

goldenweed 

Semi-barren, whitish clay flats and slopes, 

gravel bars, and sandy lakeshores at 

elevations of 7,700 to 10,300 feet on BT.

N 1 No impact

Erigeron lanatus 

Woolly daisy

Alpine or subalpine limestone talus slopes at 

11,000 feet elevation on BT. N 1 No impact.

31
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Eriogonum 

exilifolium

dropleaf (slender 

leaved) buckwheat 

Semi-bare sandy bunchgrass communities

and seleniferous gumbo 6,900 to 8,800 feet

on MB.

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Eriophorum 

altaicum var. 

neogaeum

whitebristle 

cottongrass 

Fens 9,500-14,000 feet on MB. N 1 No impact

Eriophorum 

gracile

slender cottongrass

Sedge meadows and floating bogs saturated 

soil to shallow water 6,900 to 10,500 feet on 

MB.

N 2 No impact

Festuca hallii

plains rough 

fescue (Hall’s 

fescue)

Sloped montane meadows and edges open 

conifer 6,800 to 11,000 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Ipomopsis 

aggregata ssp. 

weberi

scarlet gilia 

(Rabbit Ears gilia)

Openings in conifer forest slopes, ridges 

7,200 to 8,300 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Kobresia 

simpliciuscula

simple bog sedge 

(Kobresia)

Flooded marl wetlands with Carex simulata 

6,000 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

32
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Lesquerella 

paysonii Payson's 

bladderpod 

Carbonate mountain ranges of west-central 

Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwestern 

Montana. Rocky, sparsely-vegetated slopes, 

and often calcareous substrates at elevations 

of 5,500 to 10,600 feet. Wide elevation range 

indicates possible association with GRSG

habitat on BT.

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Machaeranthera 

coloradoensis 

var. coloradensis 

Colorado 

tansyaster

Gravelly places in mountain parks, sparsely 

vegetated knolls with cushion plants in 

sagebrush and grassland matrices 6,800-8,500 

feet

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Mimulus 

gemmiparus

Rocky Mountain 

monkeyflower

Granitic seeps, slopes, and alluvium in open 

sites with SF and aspen 8,500 to 10,500 feet

on MB.

N 2 No impact

Parnassia 

kotzebuei

Kotzebue’s grass 

of Parnassu

Moist seeps, wet tundra on thin clay soil, and 

moist ledges 10,000 to 12,000 feet on MB. N 1 No impact

Parrya nudicaulis

Naked-stemmed 

parrya 

Alpine talus often on limestone substrates at 

10,700 to 11,400 feet elevation on BT. N 1 No impact

33
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Penstemon 

harringtonii

Harrington’s 

beardtongue

Open sagebrush moderate slopes calcareous 

soils 6,800 to 9,200 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Physaria 

integrifolia var. 

monticola

Creeping twinpod

Barren, rocky, and calcareous hills and slopes 

at 6,500 to 8,600 feet elevation on BT. N 2 No impact

Potentilla 

rupincola

rock cinquefoil 

(front range 

cinquefoil)

Mountain gravel soils or shelves/niches cliffsoften granite 6,900 to 10,500 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Pinus albicaulis

Whitebark pine Whitebark pine distribution on the BT. N 2 No impact

Primula 

egalikensis

Greenland 

primrose 

Wet meadows along streams and calcareous 

montane bogs from 6,600 to 8,000 feet

Sagebrush is not a component of this habitat 

type on BT.

N 2 No impact

Ranunculus 

karelinii

ice cold buttercup

Ridges, peaks, in rocks and scree, and lowlying snow banks 10,000-14,100 feet on MB. N 1 No impact

34
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Rubus arcticus ssp.

acaulis

dwarf raspberry 

(nagoon berry)

Dense canopy in lodgepole and spruce-fir

with Linnaea borealis 7,000 to 10,000 feet on 

MB.

N 2 No impact

Salix candida

sageleaf willow 

(hoary willow)

Cool, boreal forests and prairies in remnant 

fen and seeps 6,600 to 10,600 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Salix serissima

autumn willow

Calcareous fen meadow 7,800-9,300 feet on 

MB. N 2 No impact

Saussurea weberi

Weber's saussurea 

Restricted to the Gros Ventre and northern 

Wind River ranges on alpine talus slopes and 

gravel fields at 9,600 to 11,500 feet on BT.

N 1 No impact

Selaginella 

selaginoides

Club spikemoss 

(northern 

spikemoss)

Mossy banks, wet meadows, and marsh wet 

spruce forests 7,700 to 8,000 (9,500) feet on 

MB.

N 2 No impact

Sphagnum 

angustifolium

sphagnum

Fens, acid fens, and floating vegetation mats 

7,000-12,000 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Sphagnum 

balticum

Baltic sphagnum

Iron fens and wetter areas of ombrotrophic 

bogs 7,000-12,000 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

35
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTION and RANGE

KNOWN OR 

SUSPECTED TO BE 

PRESENT IN 

ANALYSIS AREA?

EVALUATION 

CRITERIA

BIOLOGICAL 

DETERMINATION

Symphyotrichum 

molle 

Soft aster

Sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows 

in calcareous soils at 6,400 to 8,500 feet 

elevation. The identification of a Hoback 

Canyon occurrence has been questioned, but 

unresolved. Presence is acknowledged for the 

project area on BT.

Y See detailed analysis 

below

Triteleia 

grandiflora

largeflower 

triteleia

Grassy areas in sagebrush at edge of aspen

and lodgepole to 8,400 feet on MB. Y See detailed analysis below

Utricularia minor

lesser bladderpod

Shallow fens, wetland, and subalpine ponds 

6,600 to 8,600 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

Viola selkirkii

Selkirk’s violet

Moist, shaded ravines and cold boreal forest 

8,500 to 9,100 feet on MB. N 2 No impact

AL-alpine, AS-aspen, FM-forest meadow, LPP-lodgepole pine, SS-sagebrush shrub, MS-mountain shrub, PP-ponderosa pine, RIPriparian, RO-rock/cliff/cave, SF-spruce-fir, WET-wetland; (C) – Candidate species for ESA listing.

36
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 4. R2 or R4 Sensitive Species from the BT National Forest, MB National Forest, and TB National 

Grassland that may be influenced by an action alternative and further analyzed in this document.

Species Name Carried forward as:

Greater Sage-Grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus R2/R4 Sensitive

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

T. phasianellus columbianus

R2 Sensitive

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

R4 Sensitive

Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo regalis

R2 Sensitive

Northern Harrier

Circus cyaneus

R2 Sensitive

Short-eared Owl

Asio flammeus

R2 Sensitive

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

R2 Sensitive

Loggerhead Shrike

Lanius ludiovicianus

R2 Sensitive

Sage Sparrow

Amphisiza bellii

R2 Sensitive

Grasshopper Sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum R2 Sensitive

Brewer’s Sparrow

Spizella breweri R2 Sensitive

McCown’s longspur

Calcarius mccownii R2 Sensitive

Chestnut-collared longspur

Calcarius ornatus R2 Sensitive

Long-billed curlew

Numenius americanus R2 Sensitive

Mountain Plover

Charadrius montanus R2 Sensitive

Boreal Toad 

Bufo boreas boreas

R4 Sensitive

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

Ovis canadensis canadensis R2 Sensitive

Swift fox

Vulpes velox R2 Sensitive

37
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Species Name Carried forward as:

White-tailed Prairie Dog

Cynomys leucurus R2 Sensitive

Black-tailed prairie dog

Cynomys ludovicianus R2 Sensitive

Wyoming Pocket Gopher

Thomomys clusius R2 Sensitive

Hoary bat

Lasiurus cinereus

R2 Sensitive

Fringed Myotis

Myotis thysanodes

R2 Sensitive

Spotted Bat

Euderma maculatum

R2 Sensitive

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

R2 Sensitive

Astragalus barrii

Barr’s milkvetch

R2 Sensitive

Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius

Meadow milkvetch

R4 Sensitive

Astragalus paysonii

Payson's milkvetch

R4 Sensitive

Lesquerella paysonii

Payson's bladderpod R4 Sensitive

Symphyotrichum molle

soft aster R4 Sensitive

Eriogonum exifolium

Dropleaf (slender leaved) Buckwheat R2 Sensitive

Machaeranthera coloradoensis var. 

coloradensis 

Colorado tansyaster

R2 Sensitive

Triteleia grandiflora

Largeflower Triteleia R2 Sensitive

38
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

VII. SPECIES INFORMATION AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

(Direct, Indirect and Cumulative)

A. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

Greater Sage-Grouse as an Umbrella Species

GRSG populations require largea landscapes and specific habitat conditions at broad scales to 

meet their seasonal life requisite requirements. Rowland et al. (2010) and Hanser and Knick 

(2006) provide evidence that GRSG habitats at broad scales have substantial overlap with 

habitats of other species similarly associated with sagebrush and sagebrush-steppe communities. 

The plan amendment is specially designed to provide protections for GRSG and their habitats. 

Although individual species have specific habitat requirements at fine scales that differentiate 

their use of habitats, habitat protections for GRSG will likely benefit other species similarly 

dependent on these habitats. The structure of this BE reviews the efficacy for conservation and 

management actions for GRSG, and then evaluates the adequacy of these protections for other 

sensitive species including those associated with sage-brush habitats.

Distribution

GRSG historically inhabited 13 western states and three Canadian provinces, but they have 

declined across their range and now occupy approximately 56 percent of their historic range. 

They are currently found in only 11 states and two Canadian provinces (USFWS 2013).They are 

an R2 and R4 sensitive species found in association with shrub steppe and grassland habitats 

specifically having sagebrush as a component. In Wyoming, GRSG habitats within the National 

Forest lands to support GRSG population include the Medicine Bow (MB) National Forest, 

Bridger-Teton (BT) National Forest, and Thunder Basin (TB) National Grassland. Table 4 below 

shows the amount of GRSG habitat found in acres and unit percent on each unit for Alternatives 

B, C, and D. Alternative A has no designated PHMA direction.

Table 5: Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat on Forest Service Lands for Alternatives B, C, and D.

Management 

Unit

Total Unit 

Area

Sagebrush 

Habitat1

Priority/

Core2

Priority 

Connectivity2

General 

Habitat3

BridgerTeton3,400,000 430,870

(12.7 %)

5,933

(1.7%)

0 324,243

(9.5%)

Medicine 

Bow

1,262,325 132,863 

(10.5%)

5019 (0.4) 0 22,635

(1.8%)

Thunder 

Basin

553,864 438,500 

(77.4%)

217,768 

(39.2%)

6,356

(1.2%)

329740

(59.6%)

1

Acres of sagebrush habitat mapped by unit.

2

Areas identified by the Forest Service, in coordination with respective state wildlife agencies, as having the highest conservation value to 

maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. PHMAs and SFAs are sub-identified as either core or connectivity habitat. Priority-core habitat 

management areas and SFAs are the most important breeding and nesting habitat. Priority-connectivity habitat management areas are known 

migration corridors that connect populations or population segments. 3

Areas identified by the Forest Service, in coordination with respective state wildlife agencies, as those outside of PHMAs and SFAs and 

occupied seasonally or year-round.

39
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 6 shows the Proposed Plan Amendment habitat by unit, which includes additional habitat 

designated as Priority Core, Priority Connectivity, or Sagebrush Focal areas that were added by 

the Forest Service to help meet the need for viable populations. 

Table 6: Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat on Forest Service Lands for the Proposed Plan Amendment.

Management 

Unit

Total Mapped

GRSG 

Habitat

Priority Core Priority 

Connectivity

Sagebrush 

Focal 

Areas General 

Habitat

Bridger-Teton 

333,510 (100%) 35,318

(10.6%)

62,435

(18.7%)

3336

(1.0)

232,423

(69.7%)

Medicine Bow 

27,654

(2.2%)

5,019

(0.4%)

0 0 22,635

(8168%)

Thunder Basin 

553,864

(100%)

268,835

(48.5%)

6,356

(1.2%)

0 278,673

(50.3%)

Total Acres 915,028 309,172 68,791 3336 533,731

Habitat Associations and Threats

GRSG requires a variety of sagebrush structural stages and associated herbaceous components to 

meet seasonal habitat requirements. Sagebrush is essential for GRSG during all seasons of the 

year. However, this relationship is perhaps tightest in the late fall, winter, and early spring when 

GRSG are dependent on sagebrush for both food and cover. During the spring and summer, 

succulent forbs and insects become important additional food sources (Wyoming Game and Fsih 

Department 2003).

The primary threats to GRSG in Wyoming include conversion and fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitats through infrastructure development including energy development, habitat loss to 

wildfire, invasive species encroachment, disturbance from noise, drought, and mortality due to 

the emergence of the West Nile Virus in the Powder River Basin. Other factors limiting 

populations include mortality from roads, fences, and predatation (e.g. raptors as result of 

increased perches, raptors and mammals due to decreased hiding cover). Below is the list of

range-wide threats to GRSG identified by the USFWS in 2005. Wyoming is considered a part of 

the eastern population in Table 7.

40
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 7: USFWS list of impacts on the Greater Sage-Grouse.

The 2010 listing decision (USFWS 2010) identified energy development and associated 

infrastructure as the most significant threats facing GRSG in the eastern portion of its range. The 

USFWS Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report (USFWS 2013) identified the following 

as threats for Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) that include the National Forest Units. The 

TB National Grassland and MB National Forest are located in the Powder River Basin 

population area (#3) and the BT National Forest is located in the Jackson population area (#8).

41
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 8. Potential threats to populations of Greater Sage-Grouse and National Forests associated with these 

areas (USFWS 2013). Population Area Isolated/Small 

Size Sagebrush Elimination Agriculture Conversion Fire Conifer Encroachment Weeds/Invasive Species Energy Mining Infrastructure Grazing Equids Recreation Urbanization 

Management 

Zone I: 

Great Plains

TBNG/MBNF 

N L N L L Y Y Y Y Y N Y L

MZ II: 

Wyoming Basin

BTNF 

Y L N L L Y N N N N N Y L

Note: Threats are associated with the population areas. The discussion below discusses those threats that are germane to 

National Forest System land. TBNG – TBNG, MBNF – Medicine Bow National Forest, BTNF – Bridger-Teton National Forest. Y 

– Yes (Threat is a concern), N – No (Threat is not a concern), L – Low threat potential.

The Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group determined oil, gas, and coal bed natural gas 

(CBNG) development and associated infrastructure, weather, vegetation management, invasive 

plants, parasites, and diseases were the most significant threats for the northeast Wyoming 

GRSG population.

Population Status and Trend

Conservation Objectives Team Report (2013) Population Overview

The COT (USFWS 2013) reviews population persistence for each of the GRSG population areas 

based on the analysis of Garton et al. (2011) where quasi-extinction rates were modeled for a 

number of GRSG populations. The Garton et al. (2011) analysis evaluates the likelihood of 

short-term (2037) and long-term (2107) persistence of GRSG populations. In general, larger 

populations are more resilient to extirpation than smaller ones; however, trends in habitat and 

changes in threats strongly influence persistence probability (Caughley 1994). Hence, although 

small populations are at greater risk, they can persist for long periods under favorable habitat 

conditions or their proximity to larger adjacent populations. 

Garton et al. (2015) published a follow-up report building on the range-wide analysis of Garton 

et al. (2011). The 2011 book chapter in Knick and Connelley (eds.) 2011 evaluated changes in 

GRSG populations from roughly 1965 to 2007 examining population trajectories at multiple 

spatial scales. The more recent manuscript employed the same analytical methods but extends 

the field survey data to include 2008 through 2013. Garton et al (2015) provides reconstructed 

estimates for population trajectories across the species’ range using for the array of populations 

examined in 2011. 

From 2007 to 2013, data suggests that minimum counts for breeding males range-wide fell from 

109,990 to 48,641, a decline of 56%. Using population persistence models consistent with those 

42
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

from Garton et al. (2011), Garton et al. (2015) examines future scenarios for males range-wide 

(excluding Colorado) and for individual populations at multiple spatial scales. For example, a 

minimum number of males counted at leks for the entire range-wide distribution, excluding 

Colorado, were 40,505 birds in 2013 and projected to decline to 19,517 males in 30 years (2030), 

and 8,154 males in 100 years (2107) based on the scenario examined.

As outlined in past review, many factors potentially contribute to projected declines (Stiver et al. 

2006, NTT 2011, and USFWS 2014 (COT report); e.g. drought, climate change, disease, 

invasive plants, wildfire, habitat destruction, ). Garton et al (2015) suggests that environmental 

conditions and management actions through 2013 have not reversed the pattern of population 

declines observed in most populations since the 1970’s or 1980’s. Alternative A (continue 

current management) as outlined in this FEIS, most closely reflects the scenario examined in 

Garton et al (2011) and Garton et al (2015). As noted earlier, the Determinations in this 

biological evaluation reflect an evaluation of conditions for GRSG and the consequences of 

management for future populations of GRSG under each of the analyzed alternatives for NFS 

lands based on requirements for providing environmental conditions to assure the persistence of 

GRSG habitats within the capability of the unit to support these habitats when GRSG use them. . 

The evaluation for each alternative carefully considers the context provided by the Garton et al 

(2011) and Garton et al (2015) analysis for those population using NFS lands. 

The Powder River Basin population currently is large population with >500 birds/200 males. It 

has a low probability of extinction by 2037. However, threats facing this population could result 

in a high probability of extirpation by 2107. Energy development and infrastructure have had 

significant effects on the Powder River population including the sub-populations that use the 

TBNG. West Nile Virus also had profound impacts on this population. Conversely, the Jackson 

population is a small population with < 500 birds/200 males. Although the population is small, it 

currently does not face the threats of energy development and infrastructure. The population is 

expected to remain below the 500 birds/200 males threshold, but it has a high likelihood for 

short-term persistence. Based on data available through 2007, the long-term quasi-extinction 

probability is 27.3% (Garton 2011, as Cited in the COT Report) (USFWS 2013). The population 

is approximately 20 km from core habitats that support large populations of the GRSG. 

43
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 9: COT Population Persistence Overview ( Garton 2011, as Cited in the COT Report (USFWS 2013))

Population Area 

<200 

Males/500 

Birds 

Percent

Chance of 

population 

dropping 

below 

50 birds/20 

males in 2037 

Percent

Chance of 

population 

dropping 

below

500 birds/200 

males in 2037 

Percent

Chance of 

population 

dropping 

below 

50 birds/20 

males in 2107 

Percent

Chance of 

population 

dropping 

below 

500 birds/200 

males in 2107 

Management Zone I: Great Plains 9.5 11.1 22.8 24.0

Powder River Basin (3)

Thunder Basin NG/Medicine Bow NF

N 2.9 16.5 85.7 86.2

Management Zone II: Wyoming Basin 0.1 0.3 16.1 16.2

Jackson Hole (8)

Bridger-Teton NF

Y 11.2 100 27.3 100

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department monitors GRSG populations throughout the state 

including TBNG, BTNF, and the MBNF. Similar to managers throughout the range of GRSG 

they use the number of males per lek as a reliable index to track population change (see Garton et 

al 2011). This indicates population fluctuations and it is generally accepted as a reflection of the 

GRSG population’s dynamics, but it does not result in a direct population estimate. 

Thunder Basin National Grassland

TBNG is in the Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Local Working Group Area. Figure 1 displays

the average number of males/lek for lek counts from 1967 to 2013 for northeast Wyoming.

Based on this information, the regional trend suggests about a 10 year cycle of periodic highs 

and lows. A concern is that generally each subsequent peak in the population is usually lower 

than the previous peak. Additionally, each periodic low in the population is generally lower than 

the previous population low. The long-term trend suggests a steady declining GRSG population.

44
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Figure 1. Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area Average Number of Males/Lek for Lek Counts 

and All Leks (1967-2013).

Source: Wyoming Game and Fish Department Greater Sage-Grouse Job Completion June 1, 2012- May 31, 2013

Figure 2 illustrates the mean male attendance per lek for the state, Local Working Group Area, 

and TBNG. Of the six working groups, Northeast Wyoming has the lowest average male lek 

attendance in the state averaging nine males per active lek in 2013 compared to the statewide 

average of 17 males per active lek (Figure 2). Male lek attendance for the other working group 

areas ranged from 9.5 to 35 males per active lek. In 2013, the average males per lek on TBNG 

were 3.4.

Figure 2. Mean Males/Lek for Wyoming, Northeast Wyoming, and TBNG (1996-2013)

1

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Sage-Grouse Males/Lek

TBNG

NE WY

STATE

45
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

The most recent peak minimum estimated population of GRSG on the TB National Grassland

was in 2007 at 2,762 birds. The population has been in a steady decline since that time. The 

current 2013 population estimate is 368 birds. This is a loss of 2,394 birds, or an 87 percent

reduction over the last six years. The current population estimate is the lowest it has been in 16 

years (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Minimum Greater Sage-Grouse Population Estimates for TBNG and the 15 Year Average.

The TB National Grassland Plan divides the grassland into six subunits called geographic areas 

(GAs) for management purposes. Each GA identifies GRSG as a Management Indicator Species 

and, therefore, the species is monitored in each GA. Currently on TBNG GRSG lek attendance 

shows a decline in all GAs.

Figure 4: Total Males Observer by Geographic Area on Thunder Basin National Grassland

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Minimum Sage Grouse Population 

Estimate

Min. Pop. Est.

16-year mean

Min. Pop. Trend

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Males Observed

Year

TOTAL MALES OBSERVED BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Broken Hills

Cellar Rosecrans

Fairview Clareton

Hilight Bill

Upton Osage

Spring Creek

Total Males Observed

46
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

As noted above, based on current management strategies, threats, and known population 

numbers in this area, Garton et al. (2011) suggested that there was a 16.5 percent chance of the 

population dropping below 500 birds/200 males by 2037.

The Bridger-Teton National Forest

The BT populations exists within the Upper Snake River Basin and the Upper Green River 

Basin State Working Group Areas. The USRB Working Group includes the Jackson Hole 

population (COT Population #8) and the Upper Green River Basin includes the Wyoming Basin 

populations (COT Population #9a) in Management Zone 2. These populations include some of 

the smallest (i.e. Jackson Hole) and largest populations in Wyoming (e.g. Wyoming Basin). The 

majority of habitat for the Wyoming Basin populations is under the jurisdiction of the BLM, and 

the National Park Service manages the bulk of the Jackson Hole Population year-long habitat. 

However, the BTNF does manage a significant amount of GRSG habitat within their boundary. 

There are three active and one satellite lek(s) known to occur on the BT; one active and one 

satellite lek is located on the Jackson Ranger District within general habitat and one active lek is 

located on the Big Piney Ranger District within BT general habitat. The third active lek is in the 

Upper Green River Basin. None of the known lek sites on the BT are located within core habitat.

Although this indicates there are breeding habitats on NFS lands, GRSG, the majority of the 

GRSG habitats on the BTNP likely function as summer brood rearing habitat. 

Though the population on the BT is peripheral to larger populations, there are approximately 

330,176 acres of combined priority and general habitat management areas on Forest Service

lands. GRSG numbers within the Jackson Hole population are small and hence the probability of 

long-term persistence is a concern. WDGF data suggests the population has undergone declines 

from 2007 (Figure 5). When looking at the same leks over the last 17 years, the Upper Green 

River populations appear generally stable over the last four (4) years and exceed numbers in the 

late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

Figure 5: Upper Green Average Peak Males Sage-grouse Lek Attendance 1997-2013 for Selected Leks (leks 

found after 1997 are not included in order to maintain consistency in the evaluation).

Source: Wyoming Game and Fish Upper Green River Basin Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan Addendum – 2014

47
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Peak males per active lek within the Upper Snake River Basin show declines from the 1990s, 

but have been relatively stable over the last four years (Figure 6). Counts in 2013 are similar to 

2012. In 2012 there were 129 birds observed, and in 2013, 149 males were observed. This was 

slightly higher than the previous 9 year average (2004 – 2012) of 133 males. The long term trend 

continues to be declining. 

Figure 6: Upper Snake River Males Per Active Lek

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2011 Greater Sage-Grouse Job Completion Report

Since the BT comprises about 60 percent of mapped GRSG habitat within the Snake River Basin 

and less than 3 percent of mapped GRSG habitat within the UGRB, BT management may have a 

large influence on the USRB GRSG and more specifically, the Jackson Hole GRSG population. 

Garton et al. (2011), suggested that the Jackson Hole population would likely never attain 500 

birds/200 males. Proper management that reduces threats to this population and retains 

connectivity to adjacent larger populations is important to the sustainability of this population. 

The Medicine Bow National Forest

The MB National Forest contains a very small amount of GRSG habitat. Of the more than one 

million acres on the MB National Forest, only 3 percent or 27,654 acres of combined core and 

general habitat exists, mostly as summer brood rearing habitat. GRSG habitats on the MB

National Forest are peripheral to extensive sagebrush habitats on other land ownerships for 

example, the BLM.

48
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 10: MBNF Units and their Associated General and Core Sage-Grouse Habitat

Unit Unit Acres

General Acres/Percent of 

Unit

Core Acres/Percent of 

Unit

Laramie Peak 437,781 5,523 (1) 2,838 (0.6)

Sierra Madre 362,217 14,987 (4) 1,549 (0.4)

Snowy Range 406,743 2,025 (0.5) 632 (0.2)

Total 1,262,325 22,635 (0.4) 5,019 (3)

GRSG habitat on the MB National Forest is within the Bates Hole/Shirley Basin and the South 

Central Working Groups. This habitat is largely an ecological transition from lodgepole pine 

forests to sagebrush steppe interspersed with rock outcrops and is the outside fringe of the 

occupied habitat. There are no known leks on the MB to provide population information related 

to the GRSG use on Forest Service lands. 

Within the Working Group Areas, the Bates Hole/Shirley Basin Area as of 2011 has an average 

of approximately 15 males per Wyoming Game and Fish Count lek. The larger South Central 

Working Group Area had a 2011 average of 24.7 males per Wyoming Game and Fish Count lek. 

Both areas experienced increases from 2003 until 2005 -2006 and then they declined through 

2011. These declines are being attributed to normal population fluctuations. Based on current 

management strategies and threats and known population numbers in the Wyoming Basin 

population, USFWS (2013), estimated that there was no chance of the population dropping 

below 500 birds/200 males by 2037 and a low probability (~ 11%) of falling below below 500 

birds/200 males by 2107. 

Key Threats by Forest

Bridger-Teton National Forest

Key threats to GRSG on and around the BT National Forest include: energy development and 

transfer for renewable and non-renewable resources and associated activities, long-term drought, 

sagebrush eradication programs, and residential development. 

Medicine Bow National Forest

Key threats to GRSG on and around the MB National Forest include: energy development, 

infrastructure within the habitat, livestock grazing, and recreation. In addition, there are localized 

threats affecting differing portions of the population including the elimination of sagebrush;

wildland fire; subsequent invasion of weeds and annual grasses; and conifer encroachment. 

Thunder Basin National Grassland

The largest threats to GRSG and their habitat on and adjacent to the TB National Grassland

include: energy development (oil, natural gas, and coal bed methane); habitat degradation due to 

pinyon-juniper encroachment and cheat grass invasion post-disturbance; habitat fragmentation 

49
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

leading to a lack of connectivity; noise pollution; and West Nile Virus due to the readily 

available water from energy development. 

Evaluating Viability

Forest Service policy based on the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and associated 

regulations motivates careful consideration of the conservation status of sensitive species. In this 

section we briefly outline the legal foundation and the policy which establishes our approach to 

evaluating the contribution of habitat on NFS land to the overall viability of the GRSG, and how 

that evaluation differs among NFS units depending on the inherent capability and suitability of 

the environment.

The statutory underpinning for evaluating viability of species expressed in 16 U.S.C. 

§1604(g)(3)(B) requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations that shall include, but not be 

limited to:

(3) specifying guidelines for land management plans developed to achieve the goals 

of the Program which –

(B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and 

capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives....

The Department published planning regulations in 1982, under which the land management 

plans associated with the current amendment for GRSG were written. The 1982 regulations 

included the viability provision at 36 CFR 219.19:

Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and 

desired non-native species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall 

be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals 

to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that 

viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum 

number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those 

individuals can interact with others in the planning area.

All Forest Plans being considered for amendment to address GRSG conservation and recovery

were developed under the 1982 planning regulations. This Biological Evaluation considers

management guidance for GRSG on NFS lands in Wyoming, and assesses the outcomes of five 

alternatives for amendment of plans for each of three NFS land management units. The three 

NFS units differ substantially in the inherent distribution and quality of GRSG habitat. Two 

NFS units (BTNF and Medicine Bow NF) occur at an elevation and in ecological settings such 

that they support certain life history needs, but not others. As a result, GRSG use National 

Forest System lands for only a portion of the year (e.g. for summer brood-rearing habitat). In 

contrast, the Thunder Basin National Grassland provides year-round habitat. Differences among 

NFS units result largely from the environmental setting, and therefore the inherent capability of 

the environment to support particular sage brush ecosystems varies. 

50
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

As outlined in the [FEIS and referenced in this Biological Evaluation, the capability of NFS 

lands to support self-sustaining populations of GRSG is limited. The national forests contain 

relatively small areas of GRSG habitat, and often the habitat on NFS land only contributes to 

particular life cycle requisites. This is the case on both the Bridger Teton National Forest and 

Medicine Bow National Forest. 

Consequently, the assessment of whether habitat on NFS land is sufficient to maintain viable 

populations of GRSG must consider the contribution of habitat on NFS land to GRSG 

persistence generally, recognizing the inherent limitations on the ability to meet needs for all 

GRSG life stages from habitat located exclusively on NFS land. As recognized in the NFMA, 

the ability of the Forest Service to provide for diversity of animal communities is limited by “the 

suitability and capability of the specific land area...” 16 U.S.C. & 1604(g)(3)(B). Accordingly, 

this BE considers the contribution of these three NFS units to GRSG viability as follows:

• Forest plans provide for management of the environment to provide habitat to meet 

species’ requirements associated with the particular seasons and life history stages 

supported on National Forest System (NFS) lands;

• Because GRSG spend only a portion of the year on NFS lands in response to the inherent 

capability and suitability of the lands (e.g. breeding habitat occurs off NFS), there are 

threats and stressors to species’ which occur off of NFS land, and therefore over which 

the Forest Service has no jurisdiction or control;

• Managing habitats on NFS land to contribute to the support of persistent populations on 

NFS land is not the same as ensuring species viability over its entire range;

• The scale of analysis to assess the contribution of habitat on NFS land to GRSG viability

is the planning unit, which is generally considered a national forest. 

The five alternatives represent various scenarios for multiple resource management on NFS land 

with differing outcomes for GRSG. For each alternative, we end our discussion in this 

Biological Evaluation with a determination regarding the likelihood that the scenario provides 

conditions to support the persistence of GRSG on the NFS units to meet the associated life cycle 

requisites that land is suitable for and capable of providing, based on the combined outcomes of 

regulatory restrictions and restoration of habitat.

Alternative Comparison

Table 11 identifies the acreage of federal surface ownership and federal mineral leases protected 

from disturbance within the analysis area for each of the Alternatives for NFS lands on the BT, 

MB, and TBNG. (Additionally, refer to Tables 1-4 in Appendix 1 at the end of this document for 

acres of activity restriction by Alternative for each forest unit.)

51
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 11. Land Use Restrictions by Alternative on Federal Surface and Federal Mineral Leases

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction

Alternative A 

(Continuation 

of Existing 

Management) 

(acres)

Alternative B 

(acres)

Alternative C

(acres)

Alternative D

(acres)

Proposed 

Plan 

Amendments

(acres)

Surface Disturbing 

Activities

Prohibited 

Areas 0 0 0 0 8542

Restricted 

Areas 6789 0 0 1078 2514

Fluid Mineral 

Leasing

Closed 3345 348,750 1,439,673 6740 3343

No Surface 

Occupancy 8092 114,919 114,901 0 28,677

Controlled 

Surface Use 343,789 0 0 143,238 478,715

Rights-of-Way

Exclusion 

Areas 4186 106,023 585,834 106,092 5362

Avoidance 

Areas 38,551 479,811 0 28,482 240,650

Mineral Materials Closed 

Areas 0 384,523 384,523 0 0

Locatable 

Minerals

Existing 

Withdrawals 97 101 101 97 3366

Proposed 

Withdrawals 0 384,422 384,422 0 0

Solid Leasable 

Minerals (nonenergy)

Closed 

Areas 0 384,523 384,523 0 156,623

Wind Energy

Excluded 957 106,778 585,834 957 1212

Avoided 48,777 0 0 105,821 228,757

Alternative A - No Action

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Motorized access to most of TBNG is present on authorized roads which usually means higher 

concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in habitat areas. In addition, with 

increased road use, comes increased noise which has been identified as a specific stressor on 

GRSG (Holloran 2005), particularly during breeding and nesting periods. These disturbances can 

cause impacts on reproduction and survival (Blickley and Patricelli.2012). Under this alternative 

most recreational activities and noise associated with traffic would not be moderated in GRSG 

habitat.

52
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Bridger Teton National Forest

Motorized travel is currently limited to designated routes (roads and trails). New or modified 

management practices may be permissible. Through site specific NEPA projects and land 

transactions, the transportation system may be modified as necessary to provide for forest 

management, public health and safety, and access to public lands. Again, this may develop into 

higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in habitat areas. In addition, 

with increased road use comes increased noise. In this alternative most recreational activities and 

noise associated with traffic would not be moderated in GRSG habitat.

Medicine Bow National Forest

Travel Management Plans are currently in place across the MB. Motorized travel is currently 

limited to designated routes (roads and trails). Some Level 2 and 3 roads traverse the GRSG 

areas on the MB. Since there is infrequent maintenance received on these level 2 roads, they 

typically have low traffic volumes throughout the year with a potential increase during big game 

hunting seasons. These roads are all located along the forest boundary and are typically 

connected to roads that access adjacent federal, state, or private lands. Given expected increases 

in recreational and other uses of NFS lands, higher concentrations of human use adjacent to these 

motorized routes and in the associated habitat is expected. In addition, with increased road use, 

increased noise is expected. In this alternative most recreational activities and noise associated 

with traffic would not be moderated in GRSG habitat.

Analysis

There would be no changes to the current Forest Service roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on vehicle access, some new roads, and 

upgrades to existing roads permitted. These activities would continue on 235,076 acres of 

PHMA and 676,618 acres of general habitat. There would be no density or disturbance limit for 

sagebrush habitat lost to road construction. There is a current Travel Management Plan in place 

for all three Forest Service units which address all non-special use travel. Restrictions on special 

uses may apply, but off-road permits are still issued. In general, more area and lineal miles of 

routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance to 

GRSG.

Lands and Realty

Thunder Basin National Grassland

As a R2 Sensitive Species, GRSG habitat acquisition may be emphasized, however, some GRSG 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where the parcels are isolated lands that would reduce 

boundary conflicts with other ownerships or are otherwise in the public interest. Permitted rightsof-way (ROWs) would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that 

may result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation. Other impacts may include new 

infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects 

would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat.

53
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Bridger Teton National Forest

The ownership pattern is quite solid with only a few non-Forest Service parcels remaining within 

the forest boundary. Opportunities exist to secure additional lands for inclusion in the BT

through land adjustments including purchase, exchange, and donation. Although the 1990 Forest 

Plan does not speak to the GRSG specifically, it is listed as an R4 Sensitive Species and GRSG 

habitat acquisitions may be emphasized.

Medicine Bow National Forest

As a R2 Sensitive Species, GRSG habitat acquisition may be emphasized, however, some GRSG 

habitat could be traded to consolidate ownership or to reduce boundary conflicts with other 

ownerships or are otherwise in the public interest. 

Analysis

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands within all three units. There 

would be 4186 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). All Forest Service 

lands would continue to be managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted 

ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may 

result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation. Other impacts may include new infestations 

of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects would 

attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat.

Range

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Under current management direction, livestock annually graze on most rangelands and GRSG 

habitats. Exceptions are areas which are inaccessible or areas which are not capable of 

supporting grazing. On the TBNG, 86 percent of the rangelands are classed as primary range, 14 

percent as secondary, and just under 1 percent are inaccessible. Classification of the secondary 

range is almost exclusively the result of topography. The distance from water has a minimal 

effect on this determination. These results suggest that most suitable rangeland is primary range 

that receives relatively uniform grazing in most years. The current grazing systems in use on the 

TBNG, expressed as a percentage of land in each allotment, are 1) continuous system-7 percent; 

2) deferred use - 3 percent; and 3) deferred rotation - 90 percent. Although most suitable acres of

rangeland are grazed annually, not all acres are grazed simultaneously. Generally, no more than 

40 percent of the TBNG suitable acres are grazed at any one time. 

Bridger Teton National Forest

A total of 54 active allotments are managed under current (post-1990) NEPA decisions. Another 

35 allotments (19 for cattle and 16 for sheep) are in various stages of analysis for subsequent 

decisions affecting grazing authorization. The remaining allotments are managed in accordance 

with current Forest-wide goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines until an allotment of 

54
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

specific desired conditions and management plans can be developed. The BTNF allotments are 

managed under various grazing systems including rotational rest, rotational deferment, herded 

once-over grazing (sheep), and season-long grazing. Livestock grazing is permitted on 3270 

acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on four active BTNF cattle allotments. Data reflecting 

stream-bank disturbance has been used to identify grazing-related issues in some GRSG habitat 

areas of allotments currently under analysis.

Medicine Bow National Forest

Allotments are managed under a variety of grazing systems including rotational rest, rotational 

deferment, and season-long grazing. Grazing in GRSG habitat would continue as directed in the 

Forest Plan to achieve the vegetative use guidelines based on other resource issues.

Maximum allowable use guidelines in the Forest Plan are moderate; no more than 50 percent use 

of forage under a deferred rotation system and no more than 55 percent use of forage under a rest 

rotation system. Lower allowable use guidelines (40-45 percent) are applied to rangelands in 

unsatisfactory condition. Additional guidelines for riparian areas include leaving four-six inches 

of residual stubble in riparian areas at the end of the grazing season.

Analysis

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on any of the 

three Forest Service units. While most range improvements are designed to avoid a direct 

negative effect on GRSG, some range improvements may still create negative impacts on GRSG.

Un-marked fences and stock water tanks without escape ramps suitable for GRSG would exist. 

Other potential adverse effects on GRSG habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to 

infrastructure development; habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved 

livestock forage; and site specific overgrazing during drought years with a potential reduction in 

cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related 

impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual 

herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

Energy and Minerals

Mineral resources include the individual resources of leasable, locatable, and salable (common 

variety) minerals. Leasable minerals include: oil, gas, coal, oil shale, phosphate, and sodium 

brine. Locatable minerals include: iron, gold, copper, silver, lead, and zinc. Salable minerals 

include common variety materials such as: sand, gravel, stone (e.g., decorative stone, limestone,

and gypsum), clay (e.g., shale and bentonite), limestone aggregate, borrow material, clinker 

(scoria), leonardite (weathered coal), and petrified wood. In addition, renewable energy is 

generally defined as energy derived from sources continuously replenished by natural processes

including wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal.

55
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas has been a predominant use of public 

lands on the TBNG. Given that the TBNG may in its entirety be described as occupied GRSG 

habitat, energy development will continue to be an issue relevant to the conservation of GRSG.

Energy development on TBNG is also of national importance. The TBNG produces significant 

quantities of coal. There are four coal mines on the TBNG either in production or in some phase 

of planning or construction. The four mines have a collective footprint of over 120,000 acres 

within the planning area of which approximately 44,500 acres is on Forest Service lands. These 

lands produced 22.2 percent of the entire nation’s coal in 1997 and they have continued to 

increase production. In addition, there are significant oil and gas exploration and development 

activities occurring and planned on TBNG. The majority of all GRSG habitats are open to 

leasing including expansion of existing leases with no cap on surface disturbing activities.

Bridger Teton National Forest

A small percentage of Forest Service lands are subject to present oil and gas operations or future 

oil and gas leasing subject to valid existing rights. There are a limited number of oil and gas 

leases in a variety of dispositions and few areas available to future oil and gas leasing. There are 

14 leases held by production and have authorized and ongoing activities. Of the remaining areas 

available to future leasing on the BT, most areas are in the far eastern portion of the BT National 

Forest and on the front range of the Wind River Range outside of the Wind River Wilderness.

The Wyoming Range Legacy Act allows a very limited area for future leasing adjacent to 

existing leases held by production. Since the passage of the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, one oil 

and gas lease has been terminated by the BLM. Per the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, this parcel 

may never be leased again and is, therefore, permanently closed to further mineral leasing. 

Natural gas demands and consequently supplies are expected to increase in the next decade due 

to the use of natural gas as a transition fuel from crude oil to greener energy technologies. There 

is no active coal lease or an expressed interest on the BT National Forest in the near future.

There were two placer mines in operation on the BT National Forest in the recent past. There are 

no current placer operations on the BT National Forest. Locatable minerals are limited to gravel 

and sand sales. Gravel and sand mines are limited in number. There are numerous past 

geothermal exploration sites on the BT National Forest. There are no renewable energy projects 

on the BT National Forest, nor any foreseeable interest in these types of projects.

Medicine Bow National Forest

Mineral resource use on the MB National Forest has historically been widespread but sporadic.

Mineral activity is presently concentrated in a few scattered areas. In 1995 the MB National 

Forest had 12 active oil and gas leases all of which expired without drilling activity by the year 

2000. There are no oil and gas leases on the MB National Forest or any requests for leases on 

the MB National Forest. The MB National Forest has experienced limited seismic exploration. 

Most of the current mining activity on the MB National Forest has been considered 

“recreational” in nature which includes panning and suction dredging with a suction diameter of 

56
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

three inches or less for short durations in specified timeframes. There are between one and three

bonded small mining operations on the MB National Forest annually. Exploration, development, 

and production of locatable minerals will continue to depend on market prices and commodity 

supply and demand. There are exploratory core drilling operations on the MB National Forest

about every third year, but after the exploratory drilling is completed, no further interest has been 

shown. While there has been some exploration of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal 

resources, none of this has occurred in core or general GRSG habitat in this area.

Analysis

All leasing and lease operations are conducted in accordance to applicable laws, Forest Service 

policies, current forest or grassland LRMP, and lease stipulations. This energy development is a 

significant threat to GRSG as noted by the USFWS in the 2010 finding (75 FR 13910-14014)

which is energy development is a significant risk to the GRSG in the eastern portion of its range 

(Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and northeastern Utah – MZs I, II, VII and the northeastern part 

of MZ III). The primary concern is the direct effects of energy development on the long-term 

viability of GRSG by eliminating habitat, leks, and whole populations and fragmenting, some of 

the last remaining large expanses of habitat necessary for the species’ persistence.

Energy development has also been identified as a major GRSG stressor in the Powder River 

Basin of Northeast Wyoming (Taylor et al. 2012).The above listed energy development impacts 

are a result of: increased anthropogenic disturbance of GRSG habitat; off-road vehicle use;

increased traffic on Forest Service and mineral development roads; new road construction; road 

traffic speed; utility corridor permits or easements; water development; mineral leasing and 

development; surface occupancy on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial campsites; and 

development or removal of mineral materials.

Fire and Fuels Management

Thunder Basin National Grassland

In the Powder River Basin, sagebrush patch size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres 

to an average of less than 300 acres from 1966 to 2006, a 63 percent reduction (WGFD 2014).

This reduction has come about from a variety of activities including wildfire and prescribed 

burning. There were 205 wildfires on the TB National Grassland surface from 2001-2011 

averaging19 fires per year. (This does not include all wildland fires occurring on private and 

state lands during this time.) The average size of a fire on TB National Forest during this time 

was 173.5 acres with a total of 35,562 acres burned. The largest single fire was 5,670 acres and 

five of the 11 years had more than 2,500 acres burned each year. The dominant fuel types on TB

National Forest are GRSG habitat (sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie) with lightening being the 

primary cause of wildfire (61 percent), and fires caused by the railroad (sparks) being the next 

most frequent cause (20 percent), and the remaining wildfires are caused by a variety of other 

sources.

57
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Bridger Teton National Forest

Wildland fire on the BTNF are suppressed by means of full perimeter control; partially 

suppressed by means of full perimeter control on only certain portions of the fire; or managed 

entirely for resource benefits by methods of point protection for any values and monitoring of 

fire progression and effects. The prescribed burn program has treated 52,521 acres on the BT

National Forest. Early burns focused on range and wildlife improvement with most acres burned 

in lower elevation sagebrush/grass and aspen. While much of the prescribed burning still occurs 

in using these types, more burning now occurs in conifer. Following the 2000 fire season, 

priority shifted to treating wildland urban interface areas with a resultant decrease in prescribed 

burn treatments. With the stabilization of the wildland urban interface program, landscape 

burning has slowly increased since 2003.

Medicine Bow National Forest

The MB National Forest encompasses a variety of different vegetation communities in a range 

of seral stages. Vegetation communities that are susceptible to fire include sagebrush, shrubland, 

and grassland communities at the lower elevations, mixed mountain shrub, aspen, and conifer 

stands at mid-elevations, and subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce at the highest elevations. Fire 

management options in critical GRSG habitat include Direct Control (not specifically identified 

but always an option), Perimeter Control, and Prescription Control, depending on the specific

location 

Analysis

Impacts from wildfires include removal or loss of large tracts of sagebrush habitat resulting in a 

direct loss of nests and loss of nesting habitat as well as hiding cover and winter range. Wildfire 

can also increase nonnative or exotic grasses or weeds causing additional impacts. For example, 

as cheatgrass invades habitat types it can out-compete many native grasses. With the increase in 

cheatgrass come potential increases in wildfire. Fire within a cheatgrass invaded vegetation type 

becomes cyclic because fire removes the vegetation, cheatgrass re-grows to denser conditions, 

and it creates a fine fuel accumulation ready to burn again at a much reduced fire return interval 

(Davies et al., 2011). 

In Alternative A the use of prescribed fire generally is designed to maintain or improve habitat 

for desired plants and animals. However, prescribed burning is by design used to reduce the 

structure and seral condition when used in sagebrush. Recovery of sagebrush after burning can 

vary depending on the type of sagebrush and amount of annual precipitation. Mountain big 

sagebrush and silver sagebrush resprout and recover from burning far more readily than species 

such as Wyoming big sagebrush which may take decades. 

Most of the published literature concludes that fire has a negative effect on GRSG (Braun 2006; 

Knick and Connelly 2011; Beck et al. 2012, USFWS 2013). Little research exists involving the 

use of prescribed fire as a tool to thin Wyoming big sagebrush stands. Most literature evaluates 

intensive burning with a result that is near total removal of sagebrush within the burn area. In this 

58
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

alternative burning is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. This type of 

treatment could result in a localized loss or reduction in nesting, wintering, or hiding cover 

habitat while at the same time potentially increasing brood rearing habitat. 

Prescribed fire can be a useful tool to remove conifer encroachment into GRSG habitat, but 

mechanical treatment was recommended in order to provide the most rapid recovery of the 

sagebrush community (Davies et al. 2011). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The prognosis for continuation of the current management actions on GRSG habitat is a trend 

toward fewer suitable GRSG habitats due to the combination of impacts from habitat 

modification, fragmentation, or loss resulting from anthropogenic disturbance, wildfire, and 

invasion of undesirable vegetation such as cheatgrass and juniper. GRSG populations have been 

steadily declining on and adjacent to Forests Service lands since 2006 with cyclic trends showing 

declines over a much longer period. Given the previous discussion about habitat, it could be 

expected that the populations associated with Forest Service lands will continue to decline under 

current management direction. On the T BNG this trend combined with the potential for impacts 

associated with disease such as West Nile is likely to result in further reductions in the 

distribution of GRSG within geographic areas and across the entire TBNG. Alternative A, the 

“No Action” Alternative, provides the least protection for GRSG and lowest level of 

conservation.

DETERMINATION

The 36 CFR 219.19 defines a “viable population” as one that has the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the 

planning area. Garton et al. (2011, Ch. 15), Garton et al. (2015) and the COT Report (USFWS 

2013) indicate that the persistence of GRSG under current management is at risk.

This is further supported by the USFWS listing decision (2010) stating that the GRSG is 

“warranted, but precluded due to higher priorities” for listing under ESA. The two primary 

factors for this determination were: 1) the large-scale loss and fragmentation of habitats across 

the species range, and 2) a lack of regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the conservation of 

the species. In 2011 and 2012, the USFWS submitted letters to the BLM and Forest Service 

recommending that the agencies amend LUPs to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve the species.

Based on this information, the current management standards in the TB National Forest, MB

National Forest, and BTLRMP are not sufficient to maintain viability across each of the planning 

units. Therefore, it is my determination that Alternative A is “likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing” for the GRSG for all three planning 

units.

59
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative B

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

In priority GRSG habitats (PPH) new road construction would be limited to areas with less than 

3 percent habitat disturbance allowing only the minimum necessary road standard and no 

upgrading of current roads. Existing roads not designated in a Travel Management Plan would be 

reclaimed. All travel would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be 

permitted in PPHs if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. Road associated noise 

would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient levels which are lower in Alternative B

(20-24 decibels) than Alternative A. All GRSG PPH and important bird areas could be 

designated as Special Interest Areas (SIAs). There would be less disruption of habitat and

breeding in addition to reduction of road associated mortality. These measures allow less habitat 

loss and disturbance than Alternative A retaining more suitable habitat.

Lands and Realty

The PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH (General Habitat) would be managed 

as an avoidance area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of GRSG PPH. These conservation measures are more protective 

than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C.

This represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of 

GRSG PPH. (See Appendix 1 at the end of this document for specific acres of land use 

restriction by Alternative.)

Range

Alternative B adjusts grazing direction in GRSG PPH. Livestock improvements could occur only 

if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat conditions. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be 

only lightly grazed with 20-30 percent forage allocation for livestock. Fencing would be 

developed to reflect GRSG needs in all GRSG habitats. Outside of PPH, the potential effects due 

to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be the same as 

Alternative A. Potential adverse effects on GRSG habitat include habitat fragmentation due to 

infrastructure development; habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved 

livestock forage; and site specific overgrazing during drought years with a potential reduction in 

cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related 

impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual 

herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

Energy and Minerals

The PPH would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials as well as fluid 

mineral leases. Existing leases would have a four mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. 

Conditions of approval (COAs) would be attached to existing leases during analysis and 

60
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

approval of exploration and development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts on GRSG 

through a project design. Exceptions, waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and 

terms and conditions (T&Cs) for GRSG would not be considered within PPH. Outside of PPH, 

mineral development would be the same as Alternative A. This alternative better conserves PPH 

GRSG habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E and it is equal to Alternative C. (See Appendix 1 at 

the end of this document for specific acres of land use restriction by Alternative.)

Fire and Fuels Management. 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and emphasize protection of existing 

sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection also would be emphasized. In PPH 

areas within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, fire is not used to treat sagebrush unless as a 

last resort for fuel breaks and it must be within a 3 percent disturbance limit. This would promote 

the conservation of sagebrush habitats and reduce disturbances to habitat associated with fire in 

PPH. Habitat restoration would be a priority. This alternative conserves more habitat than 

Alternatives A, D, and E but conserves less than Alternative C.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Disturbance limitations in PPH would limit anthropogenic impacts on GRSG structural habitat 

conditions to a 3 percent disturbance cap. With the increased emphasis on fire suppression, 

reduced energy development, noise restrictions, and livestock grazing modifications within PPH, 

GRSG habitat usability should remain stable with a potential for improving habitat in areas 

already exceeding the 3 percent disturbance limitation. Additional management direction for 

PGH will increase habitat protections under this alternative. This alternative conserves more 

habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E, but conserves less than Alternative C. Based on the above 

habitat discussion and protections, the GRSG population would have a modest probability of 

developing a stable or upward trend. Many of the documented stressors are reduced in PGH, and 

have been removed in the case of PPH. This alternative would encourage an improvement in 

habitat conditions that would be reflected by an increase in male attendance at more leks. While 

the potential for West Nile has not been removed, the potential for a larger population distributed 

across the landscape would improve the probability of more birds surviving an outbreak. The 

expected increase in population size also provides the opportunity GRSG to re-populate 

geographic areas where they are absent or decreasing under Alternative A management.

DETERMINATION

In Alternative B the GRSG population would likely be stable or show an upward trend on 

TBNG. Many of the documented stressors would be stabilized, reduced, or removed in much of 

the GRSG habitat across the national forests and grassland. This alternative would encourage 

better habitat conditions. This alternative focuses primarily on PHMA protections. 

Within the BT National Forest there is only 5,933 acres of PHMA. This represents less than 3

percent of the GRSG habitat on the BT National Forest. On the MB National Forest the PHMA

makes up less than 19 percent (5,019 acres) of the GRSG habitat. Only on the TB National 

61
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Grassland is there a substantial amount of PHMA. This habitat designation represents 

approximately 40 percent or 235,076 acres of the TB National Grassland. 

Therefore, it is my determination that Alternative B “may impact individuals but is not likely to 

cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” for the GRG on the TB National Grassland. 

Alternative B is “likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward 

federal listing” for the GRSG within the BT National Forest and MB National Forest.

Alternative C 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to GRSG and their habitat than all other 

alternatives. These conservation measures are generally applied to both PPH and PGH. GRSG 

PPH and PGH habitat areas would be managed as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or special 

use authorization (SUA) permits. New road construction would be prohibited within four miles 

of active GRSG leks and avoided in PPH and PGH. Existing road management would be 

designed to maintain or improve both PPH and PGH. Road associated noise would be limited to 

less than 10 decibels above ambient levels of 20-24 decibels. Camping and other non-motorized 

recreation would be seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. There would 

be less disruption of habitat, breeding, and reducing road associated mortality. These measures 

allow the least habitat loss and disturbance of all Alternatives, retaining more suitable habitat.

Lands and Realty

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for GRSG. No GRSG habitat in PPH 

would be exchanged away. The Forest Service will strive to acquire important private lands in 

areas identified as GRSG Special Areas. Alternative C would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG habitat. This alternative would promote the greatest distribution and highest 

density of suitable GRSG habitat.

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within PPH. All new structural range developments and 

location of supplements would be avoided in both PPH and PGH unless they show benefits to

GRSG. Grazing and trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats would be 

avoided during periods of the year when these habitats are utilized by GRSG. Within all GRSG 

habitats, sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be 

avoided. Post-fire which includes both prescribed fire to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems 

and wildfire monitoring is required in all GRSG habitat before re-establishing grazing. Within 

PPH and PGH, livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas until woody and 

herbaceous plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives.

Livestock grazing can have positive or negative effects on GRSG habitats (Beck and Mitchell 

2000). The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would result in higher herbaceous vegetation 

62
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

cover for nest concealment, nest success, reduced predation, and increased chick survival (BER, 

Manier et al. 2013). Reduced structural developments would lower mortalities associated with 

fence collisions; disease such as West Nile when it is associated with stock water development;

and habitat fragmentation associated with water pipelines. Livestock grazing can also be 

beneficial in the establishment and maintenance of GRSG leks (Beck and Mitchell 2000), and 

can stimulate forbs and increase their availability (BER, Manier et al. 2013). With monitoring 

and rest from grazing, post-burned habitat is more likely to return to quality GRSG habitat.

Energy and Minerals

No exceptions, waivers, or modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will be 

considered within PPH and PGH. Both PPH and PGH areas would be closed to fluid mineral 

leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations/expressions of interest 

would be accepted for parcels within PPH or PGH. Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed in 

PPH. Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in PPH and PGH to obtain exploratory 

information for areas outside of and adjacent to PPH and PGH habitat. It also would be subject 

to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and winter 

habitats during their season of use by GRSG. Where existing leases exist in all GRSG habitat, 

stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when 

approving exploration and development activities. No construction of evaporation or infiltration 

reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater would be allowed. All PPH would be closed to 

non-energy leasable mineral leasing. PPH areas would be closed to mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits.

Conservation measures would be applied to more GRSG habitat, in many cases for both PPH and 

PGH. Habitat effectiveness would be improved and fragmentation reduced or minimized. Since 

nearly all of TB National Grassland is in either PPH or PGH, many of these restrictions would be 

applied for the entire National Grassland. This alternative would have the greatest benefit to 

GRSG and their habitat as it relates to energy development. (See Appendix 1 at the end of this 

document for specific acres of land use restriction by alternative.)

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all GRSG habitats, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an 

emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all GRSG habitats, sagebrush 

reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Sagebrush 

canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15 percent within any GRSG habitat.

Vegetation treatments in both PPH and PGH would only be performed to improve landscapes 

that improve GRSG. For all GRSG habitat, fire would not be used to treat sagebrush in 

precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel break. Post fuels 

management projects will be designed to ensure the long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan will include 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition; establish non-grazing enclosures; and 

include long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before 

63
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

grazing resumes. Grazing will not occur on burn areas until woody and herbaceous plants 

achieve GRSG habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in known GRSG winter 

range unless treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter 

range and will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels reduction projects including roadsides 

or other areas in all GRSG habitats would utilize mowing. In PPH habitat areas, fire suppression 

to conserve GRSG habitats would be prioritized immediately after firefighter and public safety.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in all GRSG habitats, and suppression would 

be emphasized in PPH. This would promote habitat conservation and reduce disturbance 

associated with fire. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. These measures would 

help improve overall GRSG habitat. This alternative conserves more sagebrush habitat, with 

higher shrub canopy cover, than all other alternatives. Management should result in a localized 

increase in nesting, wintering, or concealment habitat, while at the same time potentially 

allowing sagebrush encroachment into brood rearing habitat. The loss of fire as a tool could also

limit the removal of conifer encroachments into some sagebrush habitats.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This alternative provides habitat protections for both PPH and PGH habitats. While these two 

habitats combined represent only a small portion of the MB National Forest and the BT National 

Forest, they represent the entire GRSG habitat on TB National Forest and the majority of the TB

National Grassland excluding only the coal mine areas and ponderosa pine habitat type. This 

would result in very limited anthropogenic impacts on GRSG structural habitat conditions on all 

units. With the increased emphasis on fire suppression, reduced energy development, noise 

restrictions, and livestock grazing limitations, overall GRSG habitat usability should remain 

stable with a high potential for an improving trend. However, there are negative impacts to this 

alternative with the complete exclusion of grazing and the loss of fire. These tools, if used 

properly, can contribute to the maintenance and improvement of key habitats including brood 

rearing habitat and conifer removal. 

Overall, this alternative provides more suitable habitat than Alternatives A, B, D, and E. Based 

on the above habitat discussion and protections, the GRSG population would have a higher 

probability of achieving a stable or upward trend. Many of the documented stressors have been 

reduced or removed in much of the GRSG habitat across the National Forests and Grassland. 

This alternative would facilitate improved habitat conditions that would be reflected by increased 

male attendance at leks across most geographic areas. While the threat of West Nile virus cannot 

been eradicated, habitats will be managed to allow the potential for a larger population 

distributed across the landscape which may increase the potential for more birds to survive an 

outbreak. The expected increase in population would also provide the opportunity for GRSG to 

re-populate areas where they are currently absent or decreasing under current management in 

Alternative A.

64
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

DETERMINATION

In Alternative C, the GRSG population would have a higher probability for population recovery 

and persistence. Many of the documented stressors have been reduced or removed in habitat 

across the National Forests and Grassland. This alternative would result in better habitat 

conditions for GRSG. Therefore, it is my determination that Alternative C “may impact 

individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” for the GRSG

for all three units comprising the BT National Forest and MB National Forests and the TB

National Forest.

Alternative D 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

Alternatives B, C, or E. Most management measures are similar to Alternative A, although 

Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance cap in PPH and it does require consideration of GRSG 

needs for recreation special uses in PPH (Core). The potential changes in sagebrush habitat not 

covered by conservation measures would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to 

GRSG than Alternative A due to the 9 percent disturbance cap that Alternative A does not have.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and PPH connectivity habitat will be allowed 

greater than 0.25 miles from GRSG leks. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the 

other alternatives except Alternative A.

New ROWs and SUAs in PPH (Core) would generally be excluded; those allowed would be 

subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

These same uses would be allowed in PGH (Core). (See Appendix 1 at the end of this document 

for specific acres of land use restriction by Alternative.)

Range

Conservation measures are similar to Alternative A. Grazing management strategies would be 

developed cooperatively with permitees, lessees and other landowners on an allotment-byallotment basis to improve GRSG habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in PPH, GRSG habitat 

objectives and management considerations could be incorporated. Up to 15 percent of PPH could 

be retired from domestic livestock grazing where permitees or lessees voluntarily relinquish their 

grazing preference. 

Vegetative management and grazing infrastructure is essentially the same as Alternative A. 

Potential adverse effects on GRSG habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to 

65
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

infrastructure development; habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved 

livestock forage; and site specific overgrazing during drought years with a potential reduction in 

cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related 

impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual 

herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

Energy and Minerals

Conservation measures are similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent disturbance 

cap that does not exist in Alternative A. The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush outside 

of PHMA could lead to: increased anthropogenic disturbance of GRSG habitat; off-road vehicle 

use; increased traffic on Forest Service and mineral development roads; new road construction;

road traffic speed; utility corridor permits or easements; water development; mineral leasing and 

development; surface occupancy on mineral leased areas;, noise; industrial campsites; and 

development or removal of mineral materials. (See Appendix 1 at the end of this document for 

specific acres of land use restriction by alternative.)

Fire and Fuels Management

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush habitats. Treatment is 

restricted only by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority. This treatment would follow 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse

(WGFD 2011) for determining whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will 

contribute toward the 9 percent threshold. Treated areas would not be rested from grazing 

resulting in the potential to promote the expansion of noxious weeds and reducing hiding cover. 

Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. These limited 

conservation measures in PHMAs and the lack of measures in the remainder of GRSG habitat 

would have detrimental impacts on GRSG. This management approach could result in a 

localized loss or reduction in nesting, wintering, or hiding cover habitat while at the same time 

potentially increasing brood rearing habitat.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. As displayed in 

Alternative A, there is a downward trend in habitat suitability and availability which can also be 

expected for this alternative. The few conservation measures included in this alternative are 

limited to PHMA and with this only representing small portions of the GRSG habitat within TB

National Grassland and the BT National Forest, they are not expected to be sufficient to create a 

noticeable positive change in GRSG habitat across either planning unit (TB National Grassland

or BT National Forest). With implementation of this alternative, energy development, wildfire, 

road development, and increased noise would likely work together to continue to fragment and 

reduce suitable and effective GRSG habitat. Considering all of this, habitat could be expected to 

continue to decrease in effectiveness and size in this alternative.

66
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Since this alternative uses the Alternative A management direction, it is reasonable that the 

population trend associated with the Alternative A management would be similar to the results 

expected in that alternative. GRSG populations have been steadily declining since 2006 in 

populations associated with the National Forest Service lands with cyclic trends in decline from a 

longer period of time. With the above discussion about habitat in mind, it is expected that the 

GRSG population would continue to decline. This trend combined with the potential for West 

Nile is likely to lead to additional reductions in the distribution of GRSG. 

DETERMINATION

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A, therefore, its 

impacts and determinations also mirror results expected in that Alternative. As displayed in 

Alternative A, there is a continued downward trend in habitat suitability and availability which 

can also be expected for this alternative. The few conservation measures included in this 

alternative are limited to PHMA and with this only representing small portions of the GRSG 

habitat within the MB National Forest and the BT National Forest, they are not expected to be 

sufficient to create a noticeable positive change in GRSG habitat across either planning unit in 

the MB National Forest or BT National Forest. These conservation measures do not substantially 

improve the GRSG habitat management on the TB National Grassland to the point of being 

significantly different from Alternative A as well.

With this alternative being similar to Alternative A, the concerns expressed in Garton et al.

(2011) and the COT report (USFWS 2013) would likely not be remediated in this alternative.

The persistence of GRSG in this management framework would result in further declines of 

GRSG populations on Forest Service units. 

Therefore, it is our determination that Alternative D is “likely to result in a loss of viability in the 

Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing” for the GRSG for all three planning units.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)

Forest plan amendment language was specifically developed for this alternative and detail 

management direction for desired conditions, goals, objectives, guidelines and standards focused 

on the management of Forest Service units. Management direction was specifically developed to 

provide assurances for the retention and improvement of GRSG habitats that would allow the 

persistence of GRSG populations on Forest Service lands in Wyoming. The following 

summarizes the management direction associated with the implementation of Alternative E 

under the Forest Plan Amendment. 

In this alternative, the Forest Service would add additional area to PHMA for the BT National 

Forest and the TB National Grassland. This is habitat that had been previously classified as 

GHMA. Table 12 shows the Proposed Forest Plan Amendment habitat by unit which includes 

these additional habitat acres designated as Priority Core, Priority Connectivity, or Sagebrush 

Focal areas. Unless otherwise noted, Priority Core and Priority Connectivity are considered 

67
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

PHMA. GHMA will continue as GHMA and Sagebrush Focal Areas will be identified 

separately. They were added by the Forest Service to help meet the “well distributed, viable 

populations” needs described in 36 CFR 219.19. 

Table 12: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat on Forest Service Lands for the Proposed Plan Amendment (Acres).

Management 

Unit

Total

Mapped

GRSG 

Habitat

Priority

Core Priority 

Connectivity

Sagebrush 

Focal Areas General 

Habitat

Bridger-Teton 333,510

(100%)

35,318

(10.6%)

62,435

(18.7%)

33362798 232,432 

(51.9%)

Medicine Bow 27,654

(2.2%)

5,019

(18.2%)

0 0 22,635

(81.6%)

Thunder Basin 553,864

(100%)

268,835

(48.5%)

6,356

(1.2%)

0 278,673

(50.3%)

Total Acres 915,012 309,172 68,791 3336 533,731

Table 12 in contrast to Table 13 below displays the amount of GRSG habitat by acres and 

percent of unit on each Forest Service unit for Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative A has no 

designated PHMA direction and hence was omitted from the Table.

Table 13: Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat on Forest Service Lands for Alternatives B, C, and D.

Management 

Unit

Total Unit 

Area

Sagebrush 

Habitat

Priority 

Core

Priority 

Connectivity

Sagebrush 

Focal Areas

General 

Habitat

BridgerTeton3,400,000 430,870

(12.7 %)

5,933

(1.7%)

0 0 324,423

(9.5%)

Medicine 

Bow

1,262,325 132,863 

(10.5%)

5019 (0.4) 0 0 22,635

(1.8%)

Thunder 

Basin

553,864 438,500 

(77.4%)

217,768 

(39.2%)

6,356

(1.2%)

0 329740

(59.6%)

68
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

New primary (category level four and five) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the 

perimeter of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA management area in ROW exclusion areas

(2164 acres) and SFAs (1178 acres) (see Appendix 1 Table 1). Similarly, road construction of 

any category would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs within 

0.25 miles of a lek in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades would be prohibited in PHMA and 

SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would be limited to the minimum standard.

There would be a 5 percent disturbance cap on sagebrush habitats in PHMA areas and SFAs.

Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 on or 

within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses would be allowed as long 

as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than 

Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat 

loss or degradation; less disruption of nesting, hatching, abandonment of young; or temporary 

displacement of sagebrush habitat compared to Alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty

Some short-term impacts could occur. Small amounts of sagebrush habitat could be lost, 

degraded, or disturbed due to the 5 percent disturbance cap for sagebrush habitat in PHMA or 

SFAs. Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in designated 

transmission corridors; power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs; and 

some special uses. However, there would be 5362 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG

habitat on Forest Service lands. Small sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because 

sagebrush habitat could be exchanged to other ownership though this is expected to be only for 

limited situations. Overall, impacts on sagebrush habitat, predominantly PHMA and SFAs, 

would be reduced compared to Alternatives A and D, but would be greater than impacts on

sagebrush habitat in Alternatives B and C.

Range

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks and in other seasonal habitats. In particular, 

grazing will be managed to meet a 7-inch residual grass height within 5.3 miles of a lek during 

breeding and nesting and four inches during the post-nesting period. There would be some 

exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an allotment or on isolated 

parcels of Forest Service lands ≤ 200 acres. 

TB National Grassland also has several additional exceptions applied for this direction. First, if 

90 percent or more of the allotment falls within nesting or brood rearing habitat, 25 percent of 

the allotment would be exempt from meeting residual stubble height requirements. This direction 

69
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

is not applied to areas where GHMA overlaps with Management Area 8.4 (Mineral Production), 

Management Area 3.63 (Black-Footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat), or other designated areas 

for short-grass species (approximately 98,000 acres or 18 percent of TB National Forest). There 

are also areas of the TBNG that do not fall within 5.3 miles of a GRSG lek, adding additional 

areas where the residual stubble height would not apply. Potential adverse effects on sagebrush 

habitat from this exception could result in habitat loss or degradation, or fragmentation due to 

infrastructure development. Other conservation measures apply to all PHMA and SFAs.

Livestock grazing and associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized 

in a manner that contributes to rangeland health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush 

habitat. There could be areas of improved habitat for productive breeding, nesting, and brood 

rearing in PHMA and SFAs and sometimes in GH. 

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and 

GHMA better than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B provides more restrictions on livestock 

grazing in PHMA, none in SFAs, and less than those in general habitat. Alternative C excludes 

livestock grazing in PHMAs. While grazing can have a detrimental effect on GRSG habitat, it 

can also promote habitats such as lekking and brood rearing. Appropriate grazing can also reduce 

fine fuel loading to reduce the threat of wildfire. Overall, Alternative E would provide improved 

grazing management to maintain GRSG seasonal habitats.

Energy and Minerals

In all GRSG habitats but especially PHMA and SFAs, mineral operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat for existing lease areas. There is a 5 percent disturbance cap 

plus a one facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs. Habitat disturbing activities 

within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed to cause the least possible impact on GRSG 

habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 3343 acres of GRSG habitat on 

federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, 

stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when 

approving exploration and development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions 

for PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA on GRSG breeding and winter concentration areas. All timing, 

distance, density, and disturbance restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and 

locatable mineral activities as well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments,

will be constructed in a manner to reduce the potential for West Nile virus.

The conservation measures for this alternative maintain or protect sagebrush habitat in PHMA, 

SFAs, and GHMA better than Alternatives A and D. For example, Alternative A has no 

disturbance limit and Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance limit compared to 5 percent for 

this alternative. Alternative D also allows three energy production locations per 640 acres and 

Alternative A has no limitation. Alternatives B and C are generally more restrictive or 

prohibitive to energy development than this alternative.

70
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Fire and Fuels Management 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs and also primarily in GH. There is a 5 percent disturbance cap 

for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs. Prescribed fire would be restricted in areas of 

Wyoming big sagebrush or other xeric sagebrush species where fire-invasive species occur, such 

as cheatgrass, and/or within areas of less than 12-inch precipitation zones within priority and GH

or SFAs.

In addition, vegetation treatment in PHMA and SFAs in nesting and wintering habitat in 

northeast Wyoming that would reduce sagebrush canopy to < 15 percent would also be 

restricted. 

Conservation measures would maintain sagebrush habitats better than Alternatives A and D

which utilize a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit for these Alternatives 

respectively. Sagebrush treatment would be guided by Table 1, Seasonal Habitat Desired 

Conditions, the 5 percent disturbance cap, and the standards and guidelines for Fire Management 

in this alternative to maintain sagebrush in priority and GHMA management areas. In summary, 

impacts on mature sagebrush habitat would be reduced. 

Cumulative Effects

In Alternative E the Forest Service added additional acreages to PHMA for the BT National 

Forest and the TB National Grassland to help ensure sufficient legal for NFMA and CFR 

direction to meet viability requirements on each unit. These areas are associated with important 

GRSG populations that are well distributed within the suitable habitat across each unit. This is 

habitat that had been previously classified as GHMA and is now designated as Priority Core, 

Priority Connectivity, or Sagebrush Focal areas. These areas in addition to the previously 

classified PHMAs increase the area managed as priority GRSG habitats. On the BT this is an 

increase of 91,586 acres and on the TBNG it is an increase of 51,067 acres. There was no 

increase in these areas on the MB National Forest. This represents a change in PHMAs from 1.7

percent to over 29.5 percent of the GRSG habitat on the BT National Forest and a change of 40.4

percent to 49.2 percent on the TB National Grassland. 

Most of the aforementioned conservation measures apply to PHMAs and Sagebrush Focal areas. 

Of importance for all resource areas is the 5 percent disturbance cap and one facility per 640 

acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs. These measures provide additional protection from 

further habitat loss due to anthropogenic development. However, these disturbance allowances 

will still result in minor losses of GRSG habitat. 

In this alternative, many of the conservation measures are extended to the GHGHMA; increasing 

their effectiveness; and reducing the loss or fragmentation of mature sagebrush habitat in these 

areas. Also key to this alternative is the residual cover direction that is applied to grazing within 

71
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

5.3 miles of a lek in both priority and general (with some exceptions) habitats. This direction will 

provide quality GRSG habitat to most of the occupied GRSG habitat.

In addition to other conservation measures, this alternative attempts to implement the Wyoming 

Governor’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Order as well as to provide 

additional areas of conservation. The sites associated with the TB National Grassland have been 

identified as important to the local core (PPH) areas. This is supported by the following guidance 

from USFWS GRSG data call and submitted by Wyoming Game and Fish Department, October

31, 2014.

Associated with the Newcastle Core Area: “The Forest Service has identified and proposed 

additional sites to manage under core area stipulations that will be outlined in the GRSG

amendment for the TBNG. These additional areas do not have existing threats and will provide 

habitat for the viability of the Newcastle core area.”

Associated with the Thunder Basin Core Area: “The Forest Service has identified and 

proposed additional sites to be managed under core area stipulations that will be outlined in the 

sage-grouse amendment for the TB National Grassland which will likely benefit sage-grouse in 

this core area.” 

While this strategy has not been fully implemented in all areas, it is resulting in improved 

conditions for Core Areas associated with these three Forest Service Planning units. Below are 

trend graphs for these Core Areas. Of particular interest are the changes since 2013 to the 

present. While not all of the graphs show a positive change, most of them show a stable or 

increasing trend. In 2012 both the BLM and the Forest Service provided direction on 

implementing the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order. Before this change, there was no 

consistent implementation of management direction. In addition, these core areas include private 

and state ownership as well. Although these data are preliminary, they do suggest that the 

populations may be stabilizing and possibly increasing with the implementation of more 

protective management direction. It is also important to note that Alternative E does not rely only 

on the implementation of the Executive Order, there are additional conservation measures that 

are designed to influence and improve the conservation and recovery of the GRSG.

72
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Core Areas Associated with the Thunder Basin National Grassland

Figure 10. Average Males/Checked Lek for the North Gillette Core (2000-2014)

Figure 11. Average Males/C Lek for the Thunder Basin Core (2000-2014)

Figure 11. Average Males/Checked Lek for the Newcasatle Core (2000-2014)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Number of Males

Year

Male/Lek

Trend

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Average Males

Year

Males/Lek

Trend

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Average Males

Year

Males/Lek

Trend

73
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Core Areas Associated with the Bridger Teton National Forest

Figure 5: Jackson Hole Core Area

Figure 6: Daniel Core Area

Figure 7: Greater South Pass Core Area

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Average Male Lek

Attendance

Trend

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Average Male

Lek Attendance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Average Male

Lek Attendance

Trend

74
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Core Areas Associated with the Medicine Bow National Forest

Figure 8. Average Males/Checked Lek for the Natrona Core (2000-2014)

Figure 9. Average Males/Checked Lek for the South Rawlins Core (2000-2014)

Overall, the effects of management in the Proposed Alternative result in fewer negative impacts

than Alternatives A and D, but are also greater than those impacts associated with Alternative C 

or Alternative B. Based on the above habitat discussion and protections, the GRSG populations 

have a high probability of stabilizing or improving under the management direction of 

Alternative E. Many of the documented stressors have been stabilized, reduced, or removed in 

GRSG habitat across the National Forests and Grassland. This alternative would encourage 

better habitat conditions that would be reflected by increased male attendance at leks. While the 

potential for West Nile virus is not removed, the potential for a larger population distributed 

across the landscape could increase the potential for more birds to survive an outbreak. The 

expected increase in population trend would also provide the opportunity for GRSG to repopulate areas where they are absent or decreasing under current management.

DETERMINATION

In Alternative E the GRSG population would have high probability of achieving a stable or 

upward trend. Many of the documented stressors are stabilized, reduced, or removed in GRSG 

habitat across the National Forests and Grassland. This alternative would encourage better 

1.0

11.0

21.0

31.0

41.0

51.0

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Sage-Grouse Males/Lek

Natrona Core

Trend

1.0

6.0

11.0

16.0

21.0

26.0

31.0 Sage

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

-Grouse Males/Lek

S. Rawlins Core

Trend

75
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

habitat conditions. Therefore, it is my determination that Alternative E “may impact individuals 

but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” for the GRSG for all three 

planning units.

SUMMARY OF THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE ANALYSIS

The following table illustrates the findings of the analysis for each of the alternatives. It reflects a 

ranking of those alternatives that best provide for conservation of the GRSG. The alternative

ranking from least to most protective is A, D, B, E, and C with those in red “likely to result in a 

loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing” and those in green 

“may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.” 

The yellow blocks indicate the alternatives by resource area that provide the best conservation 

for the GRSG by resource area.

Table 14. General findings of the Greater Sage-grouse analysis for the 3 Wyoming National Forests.

Resource Area Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Recreation and 

Travel

Least Protective More protective than 

Alternatives A, D, E

Not C

Alternative C m most

protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Lands and Realty Least Protective More protective than 

Alternatives A, D, E 

Not C

Alternative C most 

protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Range Least Protective More protective than 

Alternatives A, D

Not C & E

More protective than 

A, B and D

Not E

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

Most protective

Energy and Minerals Least Protective More protective than 

Alternatives A, D, E

Not C.

More protective than 

Alternatives A, D, E

and B.

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Fire and Fuels Least Protective More protective than 

Alternatives A, D, E 

Not C

Alternative C most 

protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

CUMULATIVE 

EFFECTS

Least Protective More protective than 

Alternatives A, D, E 

Not C

Alternative C most 

protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

B. Sagebrush Associated Species

The Northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, Northern harrier, short-eared owl, loggerhead shrike, 

sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep, white-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket gopher, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, spotted bat, hoary bat, and boreal toad were grouped for this analysis due to their similarity 

of using sagebrush habitats though species’ specific effects may differ slightly, the programmatic 

nature and landscape scale effects will be analyzed generally and collectively for these species.

As the nature of the project is to amend the Forest and Grassland Plans to include the regulatory 

mechanisms and conservation measures used to protect sagebrush habitats for GRSG, these 

measures would have similar effects on sagebrush associated species.

Table 14a provides a comparison of Alternative impacts on species addressed in these analyses.

Specific Alternative impacts on some species can vary slightly from these general comparisons 

but these comparisons are a useful tool for categorizing effects on wildlife and plants.

76
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 14a. General Summary of Alternative Comparisons for Species Addressed. 

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Recreation and 

Travel Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, E

Not C

Alternative C 

Most 

Protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Lands and 

Realty Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, and E 

Not C

Alternative C 

Most 

Protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Range

Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A

and D

Not C & E

More 

protective than 

A, B and D

Not E

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

Most Protective

Energy and 

Minerals

Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, and E

Equal to C in 

PHMA.

More 

protective than 

Alternative A, 

D, and E

Equal to B in 

PHMA.

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Fire and Fuels

Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, and E 

Not C

Alternative C 

Most 

Protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

CUMULATIVE 

EFFECTS Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, and E 

Not C

Alternative C 

most protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Distribution

The goshawk is a R2 and R4 Sensitive Species and a MIS for the MB National Forest. Goshawk 

habitat overlaps with some GRSG habitat on the BT National Forest. Northern goshawks are a 

holarctic species occupying a wide variety of boreal and montane forest habitats over the 

northern hemisphere (Kennedy 2003). They are found in forested habitats across Wyoming.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Goshawks are strongly associated with late seral lodgepole pine, mixed lodgepole/aspen, and 

aspen forest for nesting and they are associated with a variety of age classes and shrub stands for 

77
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

capturing prey species (Squires and Ruggiero 1996, Kennedy 2003). The goshawk captures a 

wide variety of prey and it is classified as a prey generalist (Kennedy 2003). Goshawks use latesuccessional forests for foraging, but also take prey in all -successional forest stages and in some 

cases open habitats (Anderson et al. 2003). While some studies suggest population declines in 

the west, current information is insufficient to determine what populations are declining, 

increasing, or stationary (Kennedy 2003).

Their primary threat is alteration of preferred habitat from timber management practices 

(Kennedy 2003). The issues cited by researchers, agency personnel, and others as potential 

threats to habitat caused by various silvicultural treatments include forest fragmentation, creation 

of even-aged and monotypic stands, increase in area of younger age classes, and loss of tree 

species diversity (Kennedy 2003).

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)

Distribution

The ferruginous hawk is an international migratory bird found from southern Canada, throughout 

the western US, and into northern and central Mexico. This hawk is a R2 Sensitive that overlaps 

with most GRSG habitat. Wyoming is the approximate center of the ferruginous hawk breeding 

range and has one of the largest breeding populations of any state or province (Olendorff 1993). 

Oakleaf (as cited in Call 1985) estimated more than 800 pairs of ferruginous hawks reside in the 

state. The ferruginous hawk breeds throughout most of Wyoming, excluding the northwestern 

corner with highest nesting densities found in the Shamrock Hills of Carbon County (Call 1988, 

1989).

Habitat Associations and Threats

The following is a habitat description of the ferruginous hawks selected from the Forest Service 

R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (Collins, C.P. and T.D. Reynolds 2005). 

“Range-wide, ferruginous hawks occupy a variety of habitat types including open grasslands, 

shrub-steppe, croplands, desert, and the periphery of western pinyon (Pinus edulis) – juniper 

(Juniperus spp.) woodlands (Jasikoff 1982, Gilmer and Stewart 1983, Olendorff 1993, Bechard 

and Schmutz 1995). Breeding habitat includes nesting, post-fledging, foraging areas and it 

includes all of the above habitat types. Within each broad category of ferruginous hawk habitat, 

smaller scale features are important for successful reproduction. Of all the large raptors, the 

ferruginous hawk is second only to the red-tailed hawk in the array of habitats used (Cottrell 

1981, Knight and Smith 1982). In general, the fundamental habitat difference between eastern 

and western subpopulations of ferruginous hawks is the predominant use of shrub-steppe west of 

the Continental Divide and grasslands east of the Divide (Bechard and Schmutz 1995). The chief 

habitat requirement of ferruginous hawks, regardless of vegetation type, is an adequate supply of 

small rodents their primary food source (Weston 1969).”

78
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Within R2 of the Forest Service, the Conservation Assessment for this species (Collins, C.P. and 

T.D. Reynolds 2005) identified the following threats:

• Habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation resulting from land use practices including:

• Conversion of native habitat to agriculture, 

• Urbanization, 

• Improper grazing practices,

• Conversion of shrubland to grassland. 

• Human disturbance during the reproductive period, 

• Reduction of prey populations through poisoning and disease,

• Energy resource development, 

• Altered fire regimes, 

• Invasion of exotic species, 

• Diseases

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department identified the following threats specifically for 

Wyoming:

• Energy development and other large-scale projects that destroy or impair suitable 

habitats.

• Impacted by conversion of native prairie to:

o Cropland or other uses,

o Urbanization,

o Industrialization, 

o Loss of vegetative cover, 

o Poisoning, 

o Human disturbance near the nest site, 

o Reduced prey availability.

o Decreased prey abundance

o Reduced availability of nesting sites

o Current monitoring efforts are not adequate to document population trends

o Current monitoring efforts are not adequate to identify needed management over 

large areas of the State

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)

Distribution

Northern harrier is a R2 Sensitive Species and uses GRSG habitat on the MB National Forest and 

TB National Grassland. Northern harriers are a wide ranging species with very large 

distributions. Some of them have large ranging seasonal migrations occurring from North 

America to South America. They are found across Wyoming and several have been documented 

79
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

on both the MB National Forest (February 2013 NRM Database) and TB National Grassland

(TBNG Raptor Database).

Habitat Associations and Threats

Most northern harrier nests are found in undisturbed wetlands or grasslands dominated by thick 

vegetation. They prefer open habitats characterized by tall, dense vegetation. They use native or 

tame vegetation in dry or wet grasslands, wetlands, croplands, fallow fields, lightly grazed 

management units, and brushy areas. Northern harriers forage over open habitats of moderate to 

heavy cover and hunt by flying close to the ground and taking small animals by surprise. The 

diet consists mainly of small mammals including mice and voles, but they are also known to 

consume birds and occasionally reptiles and frogs.

The species is considered globally “secure” by the NatureServe because it’s widely distributed 

across North America. However, historic and recent evidence suggest the number of breeding 

harriers has declined across the species’ range. The greatest threats are loss of wetland and 

grassland habitats and habitat fragmentation primarily from agricultural production (Slater and 

Rock 2005).

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)

The following habitat description of the Short-eared Owl is selected directly from the Forest 

Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (Wiggins 2005a).

Distribution

The Short-eared Owl is found throughout Canada and the US. It breeds and occupies open 

habitats from the most arctic and temperate areas to the south and central portions of the United 

States. Short-eared Owls are nomadic within their range and may be absent from some breeding 

areas for several years. Within R2, there are is few data that analyses are hampered due to low 

statistical power. Within Wyoming, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (Cerovski et al. 

2012) have provided some sighting information locally. They have documented occurrences in 

all counties within the analysis area. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

In North America Short-eared Owls nest in open habitats including grasslands, sagebrush, 

marshes, and tundra. Foraging habitat is similar to nesting habitat. In R2 habitat is typically 

composed of large (>500 hectares) tracts of native medium to tall grasslands ideally interspersed 

with wet areas or marshes. 

The most significant factor thought to limit population growth in Short-eared Owls is the 

availability of suitable nesting and foraging habitat due to loss of native grassland and wetland 

habitats; degradation of existing grasslands due to overgrazing by livestock; and degradation of 

grassland habitat due to fragmentation

80
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

Distribution

Loggerhead shrike is a R2 Sensitive Species using GRSG habitat on the MB National Forest and 

TBNG. The loggerhead shrike is widespread in North America. Several of them have been 

documented in both the MB National Forest (February 2013 NRM Database) and TBNG (TBNG 

Wildlife Database).

Habitat Associations and Threats

The loggerhead shrike frequents open habitats such as deserts, sagebrush, grasslands, and 

pastures (Wiggins 2005). Important habitat requirements include: scattered trees, shrubs, or low 

bushes for nesting substrate; elevated perches for hunting and courtship activities; foraging areas 

comprised of open, short vegetation with some relatively bare areas; and thorny trees or barbed 

wire fences for impaling prey (Pruitt 2000).

Recent range contractions and declines in abundance have occurred in many areas of North 

America and in several different types of habitat. Factors responsible for the species’ near rangewide declines are not yet clear, but include direct loss and degradation of native grassland and 

sagebrush habitats (Wiggins 2005) .

Sage sparrow (Amphispiza bellii)

The following is a habitat description of the Sage sparrow selected directly from the Forest 

Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (Holmes, J.A. and M.J. Johnson 2005a).

Distribution

The Sage sparrow breeds over much of the Great Basin east of the Cascades and Sierra Nevada 

and west of the Rocky Mountains. It winters in central California and central Nevada, 

southwestern Utah, south to northern Baja California, northern Sonora, southwestern Chihuahua 

in Mexico, and west Texas (Martin and Carlson 1998). Locally, Sage sparrows are found across 

most of Wyoming in prairie and foothills habitat where sagebrush is present (Cerovski et al. 

2001) with the largest number of them found in southwestern Wyoming. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

The Sage sparrow is considered a sagebrush obligate associated with shrublands dominated by 

big sagebrush with a perennial bunchgrass understory (Braun et al. 1976, Paige and Ritter 1999). 

Landscape level attributes positively associated with Sage sparrow density include high 

sagebrush cover, large patch size, spatially similar patches, low disturbance, and little 

fragmentation (Knick and Rotenberry 1995). Knick and Rotenberry (2002) found that the 

occurrence of Sage sparrows grew with increasing area of sagebrush patches and decreasing 

fragmentation.

81
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Within its sagebrush shrub steppe breeding habitat, local (e.g., within-patch), components 

positively correlated with Sage sparrow densities are the amount of big sagebrush, shrub cover, 

bare ground, and above-average shrub height. Conversely, density of Sage sparrows have been 

negatively correlated with greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) and grass cover (Rotenberry 

and Wiens 1980, Wiens and Rotenberry 1981, Larson and Bock 1984, Paige and Ritter 1999).

Wyoming densities are negatively influenced by landscape-level habitat changes that increase 

fragmentation of shrublands and those numbers appear to be more sensitive to variation in 

landscape-level attributes than local-scale habitat attributes (Knick and Rotenberry 2000).

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella brewerii)

Distribution

Brewer’s sparrow is a MIS for the BT National Forest and a R2 Sensitive Species using GRSG 

habitat on the TBNG, BT, and MB. Brewer’s sparrows inhabit prairie and foothills shrublands 

where sagebrush is present. Brewer’s sparrows summer in North America and winter in Central 

America or South America.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate nesting in live sagebrush or on the ground at the base 

of a live sagebrush shrub. Brewer’s sparrow is globally “secure” by NatureServe because of its 

wide distribution across North America. However, according to the Breeding Bird Survey, 

Brewer’s sparrow populations have declined by over 50 percent during the past 25 years.

Brewer’s sparrow populations in the west have exhibited similar long-term declines. Reported 

population declines on the breeding areas are likely linked to extensive alteration of sagebrush 

shrub steppe habitat (Holmes and Johnson 2005b). Alteration has occurred as a result of 

extensive, ecologically transformative influences of livestock grazing followed by alteration of 

natural fire regimes and invasion by exotic plant species, especially cheatgrass (Holmes and 

Johnson 2005b). Loss and fragmentation of habitat due to agricultural, urban, suburban, energy, 

and road development also threaten the species. 

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)

Distribution

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is a R2 Sensitive Species using a small area of GRSG habitat 

at the southwest edge of the MB National Forest in southern Carbon County, Wyoming.

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are found only in Colorado and Wyoming in the Rocky 

Mountains (Hoffman and Thomas 2007). Sixty-eight percent of the occupied range in the Rocky 

Mountain region is on private lands with 4 percent occurring on lands administered by the Forest 

Service. There are two Columbian sharp-tailed grouse leks on the MB National Forest that 

overlap with GRSG GHMA.

82
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Habitat Associations and Threats

These birds inhabit the transition zone between the arid sagebrush rangelands and the start of the 

aspen-conifer forests at elevations of 1,890 to 2,591 m. It is endemic to big sagebrush, shrub 

steppe, mountain shrub, and riparian shrub plant communities (Hoffman and Thomas 2007).

The subspecies currently occupies less than 10 percent of its historic range with only three 

metapopulations remaining in central British Columbia, southeastern Idaho and northern Utah, 

northwestern Colorado, and south-central Wyoming (Hoffman and Thomas 2007). Within the 

Rocky Mountain region, this Columbian sharp-tailed grouse formerly could be found in as many 

as 22 counties in western Colorado and portions of 11 counties in west-central, southwestern, 

and south-central Wyoming. Today, viable populations occur in only three counties in Colorado 

and one county in Wyoming.

Possible loss of Conservation Reserve Program lands is the single most important immediate 

threat to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the Rocky Mountain Region (Hoffman and Thomas 

2007). Other threats include habitat loss and degradation caused by conversion of native habitats 

to pasture and croplands; overgrazing by domestic livestock; energy development; use of 

herbicides to control big sagebrush; alteration of natural fire regimes; invasion of exotic plants;

and urban and rural expansion.

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis canadensis)

Distribution

Bighorn sheep is a R2 and R4 Sensitive Species using a small amount of GRSG habitat on the 

MB. Bighorn sheep were historically distributed from the Canadian provinces of British 

Columbia and Alberta south to Mexico. From the late 1800’s through the mid-1900s, Bighorn 

sheep populations experienced significant declines across their range (Beecham et al. 2007). In 

the 1960’s, many western states began active Bighorn Sheep transplant programs in an effort to 

augment small, remnant sheep populations and to reintroduce them into historic, but vacant, 

habitat. The lower elevation edge of Bighorn Sheep seasonal ranges in the Sierra Madre 

Mountains and Laramie Peak overlap with the upper elevation edge of GRSG preliminary 

GHMA totaling less than 5000 acres.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Bighorn sheep are primarily animals of open habitats such as: alpine meadows, open grasslands, 

shrub-steppe, talus slopes, rock outcrops, and cliffs; in some places, however, they may use areas 

of deciduous and conifer forests, especially where openings may have been created by clear-cuts 

or fire (Beecham et al. 2007). Records indicate that historically Bighorn Sheep were sometimes 

found distant from rugged mountainous terrain. However, their current distribution is confined to 

scattered populations in open or semi-open, often precipitous, terrain characterized by a mix of 

steep or gentle slopes, broken cliffs, rock outcrops, and canyons and their adjacent river benches 

and mesa tops. 

83
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

As summarized from Beecham et al. (2007): Bighorn sheep populations declined to less than 

25,000 individuals in the continental United States by 1960. Transplant programs initiated in 

Canada, the United States, and Mexico were successful in restoring Bighorn Sheep to over 200 

historic sites by 1990. It was estimated there were more than 185,000 wild sheep in North 

America by 1991. Although Bighorn Sheep numbers and distribution have increased 

dramatically since 1960 due to transplant and habitat conservation efforts, many individual herds 

remain small (less than 150 individuals) and susceptible to extirpation.

The risk of disease outbreaks resulting from contact with domestic sheep and goats is widely 

believed to be the most significant threat facing bighorns across their range (Beecham et al. 

2007). Other threats include the: lack of connectivity and/or loss of genetic variability (fitness) 

due to habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; increased human disturbance; competition with 

domestic livestock; and predation on small, isolated herds (Beecham et al. 2007).

White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus)

Distribution

The white-tailed prairie dog is a R2 sensitive species. Approximately acres of the only colony 

on the MB National Forest overlap with GRSG habitat on the MB National Forest. The Whitetailed prairie dog historically occurred across 43-51 million acres of high altitude (6,980 – 8,200 

feet) grasslands, ranging from southern Montana to west-central Colorado and from eastern Utah 

to eastern Wyoming (Pauli et al. 2006). Current estimates suggest the species occupies roughly 

840,000 acres within Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Montana. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Unlike other prairie dog species, White-tailed prairie dogs are capable of establishing colonies in 

a variety of habitat types including: shrub-steppe, short-grass prairie, meadow, mountain valley, 

and transitional areas with mixed stands of shrubs and grasses. Typically, colonies are located in 

plant communities with low vegetative height and in systems generally dominated by grasses, 

forbs, and low shrubs. 

Their historical range was estimated between 42 and 49 million acres. Using this estimate of 

historic range occupation, the current occupied area would represent a range contraction of 

approximately 99 percent (Pauli et al. 2007).

Plague, an exotic and virulent disease, appears to be the single most important factor 

constraining the current distribution of White-tailed prairie dogs (Pauli et al. 2007). Other threats 

include mineral development, conversion of native habitat to agriculture and urban areas, 

poisoning, and recreational shooting.

84
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius)

Distribution

The Wyoming pocket gopher is a R2 Sensitive Species with the possibility that some potential 

habitat overlaps with GRSG habitat on the far west end of the Little Sandstone drainage on the 

MB. However, there are no confirmed occurrences on Forest Service-administered lands 

(Keinath and Beauvais 2006). The species occurs exclusively in Wyoming.

Habitat Associations and Threats

The Wyoming pocket gopher appears to segregate from northern pocket gophers by

preferentially occupying dry, gravelly, and shallow-soil ridge tops rather than deeper soiled 

swales and valley bottoms. Many existing capture locations are from greasewood communities 

on the edges of eroding washes. The population status is unknown and it is assumed to be rare 

with a very restricted distribution, but there is a lack of extensive surveys for pocket gophers in 

central Wyoming (Keinath and Beauvais 2006). Ad hoc efforts failed to document gophers at 

several historic localities leading to speculation of population declines. Limiting additional 

disturbance to areas containing known, active Wyoming pocket gopher burrow complexes is 

presently the best conservation measure since little information is available about this species.

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

The following is a habitat description of the Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) from the Forest 

Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (Keinath 2004).

Distribution

This is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps GRSG habitat. Fringed myotis appear to be 

relatively rare range-wide. Fringed myotis is predominantly found in western North America 

occurring from southern British Columbia, and south through southern Mexico. It occurs west to 

the Pacific coast and east to the Rocky Mountains of R2 with a potentially isolated population in 

the Black Hills of South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Populations in Mexico are 

predominantly found in the central highlands. Occurrences have been documented in 14 states 

(Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). Fringed myotis occurs over most of R2

and the Black Hills subspecies (M. t. pahasapensis) is restricted to the Black Hills of South 

Dakota and Wyoming and extreme northwestern Nebraska all within R2. (Keinath 2004)

Habitat Associations and Threats

The Fringed myotis appear to use a fairly broad range of habitats (Cryan 1997). The most 

common habitats in which this species has been found are oak, pinyon, and juniper woodlands or 

ponderosa pine forest at middle elevations (Davis 1966, Barbour and Davis 1969, O’Farrell and 

Studier 1980, Cockrum et al. 1996, Wilson and Ruff 1999, Ellison et al. 2004). They also appear 

to use deserts (Cockrum et al. 1996), grasslands, and other types of woodlands. When trying to 

generalize all published information, one observes that M. thysanodes is mostly found in dry 

85
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

habitats where open areas (e.g., grasslands and deserts) are interspersed with mature forests 

(usually ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, or oak), creating complex mosaics with ample edges 

and abundant snags. This can take a variety of forms in R2 where open areas are likely 

represented by short and mixed-grass prairie, sagebrush, and other xeric shrublands and forests. 

Ideal habitat includes nearby water sources and suitable cliff or snag roost habitat.

Suitable roosting sites are a critical habitat component and the availability can determine 

population sizes and distributions (Humphrey 1975, Kunz 1982). Throughout their range, this 

type of myotis use caves, mines, and buildings as maternity colonies, solitary day and night 

roosts, and hibernacula. They regularly roost underneath bark and inside hollows of tree snags, 

particularly ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in medium stages of decay (Kurtzman 1994, Morell 

et al. 1994, Murphy 1994, Rasheed et al. 1995, Chung-MacCoubrey 2001, as cited in Cryan 

1997). Possible declines are likely due to a combination of primary threats including roost loss 

and modification, habitat alteration, and toxic chemicals (see more specific information within 

the Species Conservation Assessment).

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

The following is a habitat description of the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii). This information is selected direct quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation 

Assessment for this species (Gruver and Keinath 2006). 

Distribution

Townsend’s big-eared bat is distributed broadly throughout western North America, and it 

occurs in two disjunct, isolated populations in the central and eastern United States (Figure 4). In 

the West, this species’ range extends from the Pacific coast north to southern British Columbia, 

south to central and southern Mexico and the Baja Peninsula. The eastern most extent of the 

western range includes the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming, a small region of southcentral Kansas, and western portions of Texas and inland eastern Mexico. In R2, the most 

widespread distributions of Townsend’s big-eared bats occur in Colorado and Wyoming. This is 

a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps GRSG habitat.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Townsend’s big-eared bat is unequivocally associated with areas containing caves and caveanalogs for roosting habitat. Beyond the constraint for cavernous roosts, habitat associations 

become less well-defined and it has been noted foraging in a wide variety of habitats (Pierson et 

al. 1999). Generally, Townsend’s big-eared bats are found in the dry uplands throughout the 

West, but they also occur in mesic coniferous and deciduous forest habitats along the Pacific 

coast (Kunz and Martin 1982). This may reflect the need to roost where structures are available 

as opposed to within a particular vegetative zone. Thus, suitable foraging habitat for C. 

townsendii will likely be a heterogeneous mosaic of forested and edge habitats including riparian 

zones which are also used for commuting and drinking (e.g., Fellers and Pierson 2002). 

86
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Areas with substantial beaver activity enhance the quality of foraging habitat by increasing 

ecosystem productivity (Naiman et al. 1986), providing gaps in the forest canopy, providing 

small, quiet ponds for drinking, and causing an increase in insect activity. In Wyoming there is 

little information available on colony size or status before 1994. At least three maternity colonies 

have been identified including one in an abandoned mine and two in caves, harboring 46, 50+, 

and 200+ individuals respectively, with an additional cave colony reported by Keinath (2005). At 

this time, only two hibernacula have been found with each containing fewer than four individuals 

(Gruver and Keinath 2006).

Townsend’s big-eared bat is highly intolerant to human disturbance at roosts. Since the early 

1970’s, bat researchers have expressed concern about apparent declines in numbers of cavedwelling species of bats (Henshaw 1972), and Corynorhinus townsendii appears not to have been 

immune to the forces driving these declines. The primary threats include loss, modification, and 

disturbance of roosting habitat and foraging habitat. These impacts can be the result of 

elimination of forest canopy or alteration of wetland habitat, including activities that reduce the 

productivity of wetlands. Activities that alter the surface and subsurface hydrology of wetlands 

including draining, stream diversion, and removal of shrub and overstory vegetation, ultimately 

may reduce the value of wetlands to this species. The conversion of native shrub and grasslands 

to urban or agricultural uses also may have negative impacts on this species. Exposure to 

environmental toxins including pesticides and heavy metals if ingested by bats can cause death 

or reduce reproductive ability. Pesticide application can also indirectly affect bats via reduction 

of insect prey.

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum)

The following is a habitat description of the Townsend’s big-eared bat. This information is 

selected direct quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species 

(Luce and Keinath 2007).

Distribution

The Spotted bat inhabits western North America from southern British Columbia through most 

of the western states to central Mexico. Spotted bat distribution in Wyoming is still unknown, 

although it may be more prevalent throughout the western part of the state (Hester and Grenier 

2005). This species has not been documented within the TBNG but is suspected of occurring in 

suitable habitat on those lands. In R2 the most widespread distributions of Corynorhinus 

townsendii occur in Colorado and Wyoming. This is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps GRSG 

habitat.

Habitat Associations and Threats

This species occurs in a wide variety of habitats and roosts in cracks and crevices in cliffs and 

canyons (Hester and Grenier 2005). Roost sites have to be in close proximity of foraging and 

water sources (Luce 2004). The spotted bat has been reported from a wide variety of habitats 

from desert shrub to coniferous forest.

87
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

This species probably occurs naturally in highly localized sub-populations where suitable habitat 

conditions exist, leaving large areas unoccupied (Luce and Keinath 2007). The spotted bat occurs 

at very low population density. Hence, few surveys have documented occurrence and almost no 

surveys have been repeated that would assist in estimating abundance over time.

There are several threats to these bats. Main threats include habitat alteration (loss or reduction 

of wet meadows and other foraging areas from over-grazing by livestock, water diversion, or 

conversion of native habitats to tilled cropland). Main threats also include over-utilization by 

collection of specimens. Threats also include the use of pesticides that bats may bioaccumulate 

through their diet or that kill their prey and roost loss and modification (the direct destruction, 

loss, or disturbance of cliff and rock wall roosting habitat).

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)

Distribution

The Hoary bat is the most widespread of all American bats. It occurs throughout the US north to

the limit of trees in Canada and south to Argentina and Chile. In Wyoming, the Hoary bat occurs 

statewide during summer from the low elevations of the eastern plains to 3000 m (10,000 feet) in 

the mountains.

Habitat Associations and Threats

These bats are solitary and roost in deciduous trees on sites generally open only from below

three-four meters above the ground. The Hoary bat is associated with forested habitats both 

deciduous and coniferous. It can be found in montane forests, cottonwood riparian forests, 

shelterbelts, tree rows, juniper woodlands, and urban parks. Diverse forest habitats with a 

mixture of forest and small open areas that provide edges are ideal habitat for this species (Hester 

and Grenier 2005). The Hoary bat is considered uncommon throughout most of the eastern U. S.

and in the northern Rockies, but common in the prairie states and the Pacific Northwest. 

Potential threats include degradation, fragmentation, and loss of forest habitats; pesticides and

other contaminants; and human-caused mortality during migration (such as wind turbines and

communications towers) (Hester and Grenier 2005). The Hoary bat was the most commonly

found bat during mortality searches at a wind power facility in south central Wyoming, and most 

mortalities were probably migrants.

Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas)

Distribution

The Boreal toad is a R2 and R4 Sensitive Species and a MIS for the BT National Forest. Boreal 

toads overlap with some GRSG habitat on the BT. Boreal toads occur from northern New 

Mexico to Alaska including the Rocky Mountains and west to the Pacific Coast. In Wyoming, its 

range is restricted to mountains and foothills and relatively moist conditions (Baxter and Stone 

1992), ranging in elevation from about 6,500 to 12,000 feet (WGFD 2005). Boreal toads were 

88
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

formerly widespread and common, but have declined dramatically in the last three decades in 

many portions of its extensive range in western North America (Carey 1993, Corn 1994, Keinath 

and McGee 2005). It is a species of concern in Wyoming. “Boreal toad populations appear to be 

in a state of severe decline. Numerous factors may be contributing to these declines...” (WGFD 

2005).

Currently, boreal toads appear to be rare to uncommon on the BT. In 2005, five Boreal toad 

breeding sites were selected as monitor sites based on information in Patla (2002). Three sites 

were between the Buffalo and Jackson Ranger Districts and two sites in the Big Piney/Pinedale 

Districts. In the first year of monitoring, evidence of breeding was only observed at one site 

(Buffalo Ranger District). The other sites were flooded out or somehow changed when the 

surveys took place. Since then a small number of possible breeding sites have been found in 

other locations including on the Kemmerer and Greys River Ranger Districts.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Boreal toads are associated with a variety of habitats including: wetlands, forests, woodlands, 

sagebrush, meadows, and floodplains in the mountains and valleys. Usually they inhabit 

wetlands near: ponds, lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams. Breeding occurs in ponds, slow 

streams, river backwater channels, and along lake edges. They require three main habitat 

components: 1) shallow wetlands for breeding, 2) terrestrial habitats with vegetative cover for 

foraging, and 3) burrows for winter hibernation (Loeffler 2001). Boreal toads have a low 

reproductive output.

Threats to Boreal toads include: chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis: acidification of 

wetlands: thinning of the ozone layer: timber harvesting that causes sedimentation: livestock 

grazing in and around riparian areas: pesticides and herbicides: and introduced species which 

prey on toads or create competition for resources or are vectors for pathogens (Keinath and 

McGee 2005). Any activity that alters mountain wetland habitats can affect boreal toad 

populations.

Alternative A - No Action

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current system roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use, and some new roads and 

upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on recreation special 

uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of 

habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance. These activities would continue on 235,076 acres of 

PHMA and 676,618 acres of GHMA and there would be no density or disturbance limit for acres 

of sagebrush habitat lost to road construction. Less restrictive recreation travel usually means 

higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in sagebrush habitat. These 

89
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

can cause disruption of nesting or birthing activities, abandonment of young and temporary 

displacement. In this alternative most recreational activities and noise associated with traffic 

would not be moderated in GRSG habitat. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There would 

be 4186 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). Some sagebrush habitat 

could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic 

benefits. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be managed according to 

Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, 

maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or 

invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate 

or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat or disturbance to sagebrush 

associated species.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing. Livestock 

grazing is permitted on 3,270 acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on the BT National 

Forest and almost all GRSG habitat on the MB National Forest and TBNG. Potential effects on 

sagebrush habitat could include: site specific overgrazing; reduction in cover; structure;

diversity of residual vegetation from consumption; and degradation of rangeland habitat due to 

trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include higher predation and 

parasitism. Reduced cover could result in lower forage availability or fewer prey and, therefore, 

lower abundance of sagebrush associated species. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 

grazing management usually provide sufficient cover and forage for sagebrush associated species 

across the Forests and Grassland.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of priority core habitat would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals.

The majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing including expansion of 

new leases. This alternative could cause a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would 

be closed on 3345 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases 

(Appendix 1). There would be greater negative effects from related noise, increased presence of 

roads/humans, and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open landscape. Recent work from 

developed natural gas fields in Wyoming (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2011) documents 10-20 percent 

declines in the abundance of certain sagebrush obligates.

90
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Also, treatment is permitted 

in breeding, nesting, and winter range. Much sagebrush habitat could be treated. There would be 

no disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush moved into an early successional stage by wildfires 

and prescribed fires. The liberal prescribed fire opportunity in this alternative could decrease late 

succession habitat. Impacts could include removing or losing large tracts of shrub cover to 

prescribed or wildfire, losing nests, and increasing nonnative or exotic grasses or weeds. This 

alternative does recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants. Additional 

forage would be created for species relying on herbaceous plants.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat also occurs on private, state, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur for these owners. There are some existing conservation measures on 

these other lands especially BLM., However, cumulatively there could be additional loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROW granted, energy and mineral 

development, range management, and fire and fuels management in sagebrush habitat. The 

combined impact is a trend toward more loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat; more early 

succession grass-dominated habitat; more disturbances in sagebrush habitat; and higher 

occurrence of invasive and nonnative plants. Cumulative effects are discussed in greater length 

in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Summary of Alternative A

Existing levels of habitat alteration or loss and disturbance would continue or could increase.

Limitations would be provided only by Forest Plan guidance which generally allows substantial 

disturbance and habitat loss in sagebrush habitat. Grassland Plan guidance is more restrictive.

The limited conservation in the five resource areas could allow substantial changes in sagebrush 

habitat quantity, quality, and ownership on sagebrush habitat on the Forest.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of Alternative A conservation measures limits a 

few impacts on sagebrush associated species. Proposed management would have impacts on 

individuals of the sagebrush associated species. Determinations are consistent for the TBNG,

BT, and MB. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s bigeared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on TBNG.

91
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Short-eared owl, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharptailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, White-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket 

gopher, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on the MB.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk and Boreal 

toad on the BT.

Alternative B

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 3

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 234,621 acres of PHMA in Alternative B. All travel 

would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA

if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird 

Areas could be designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than 

Alternative A, retaining more sagebrush habitat across the Forest units. There would be less 

disruption of nesting and birthing, less abandonment of young, or temporary displacement.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some sagebrush habitat. There 

would be 106,023 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). These 

conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, 

D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize 

connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PHMA, which also benefits sagebrush 

associated species. (See Appendix 1 at the end of this document for specific acres of land use 

restriction by Alternative.)

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA in favor of GRSG and sagebrush 

associated species. There are 235,076 acres of PHMA across the Forest Service units in this 

alternative. Many livestock infrastructure improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland 

or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. The potential 

effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be 

similar to Alternative A except Alternative B provides more restrictions that would protect 

92
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

sagebrush habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for <2 percent of the land cover in the Forests and 39

percent of the Grassland so changes would be variable and localized. There would be areas of 

improved sagebrush habitat quality for productive breeding, foraging, and cover for sagebrush 

associated species.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile,

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Additionally, there would be a 3 percent disturbance 

limitation and a one disturbance/section limitation in PHMA. For example, fluid mineral leasing 

would be closed on 348,750 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases 

(Appendix 1). This alternative would conserve sagebrush habitat now and into the future for 

GRSG and sagebrush associated species. Energy and mineral development could still occur in 

the remaining sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PHMA and, therefore habitat 

for sagebrush associated species than Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to Alternative C in 

PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration and recovery would be emphasized. Prescribed burning in PHMA would be avoided 

in the <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent disturbance 

limit. These measures would promote the conservation of mature sagebrush habitat and reduce 

disturbance to wildlife from fire in PHMA. Consequently, there would be less early stage 

sagebrush communities for some species. This alternative conserves more habitat than 

Alternatives A, D, and E, but conserves less than Alternative C. (See Appendix 1 at the end of 

this document for specific acres of land use restriction by alternative.)

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat also occurs on private, state, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest units. Activities occurring in the five resource 

areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these 

other lands especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional loss, degradation, or 

disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, range 

management, and fire and fuels management in sagebrush habitat. However, anthropogenic 

disturbances >3 percent on all ownerships in PHMA would restrict more disturbance on federal 

lands. Cumulative effects are discussed in greater detail in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in PHMA which is <1 percent to 39

percent of the sagebrush habitat across the Forest Service units. There would be benefits to 

individuals in PHMA. Generally, activities in GHMA and the remaining sagebrush habitat will 

93
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

occur as they currently do or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities affect 

most sagebrush habitat on the Forest Service units. Overall impacts will be reduced compared to 

Alternative A.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes occurred particularly on the Grassland. Habitat 

which is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in Alternative B in 

PHMA would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated species. However, proposed 

management allowances would have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated species.

Determinations are consistent for the TBNG, the BT, and the MB. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s bigeared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Short-eared owl, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharptailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, White-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket 

gopher, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on the MB.

Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk

and Boreal toad on the BT.

Alternative C

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. They would generally be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, these 

measures would benefit more than 600,000 acres of habitat more than most other alternatives.

New road construction is prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks, and it is avoided in 

PHMA and GHMA. Existing road management would be designed to maintain or improve both 

PHMA and GHMA. Camping and other non-motorized recreation would be seasonally 

prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These measures allow the least habitat loss 

and disturbance among Alternatives. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance would be 

reduced on much of the sagebrush habitat. There would be significant reduction in disruption of 

nesting and birthing activities, abandonment of young, or temporary displacement of sagebrush 

associated species. 

94
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for sagebrush associated species. GRSG 

priority and general sagebrush habitat would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW 

projects (Appendix 1). This is >80 percent of sagebrush habitat across the management units.

Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of GRSG sagebrush habitat, 

limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. This alternative would promote the 

greatest distribution and highest density of sagebrush associated species. (See Appendix 1 at the 

end of this document for specific acres of land use restriction by Alternative.)

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 235,076 acres of PHMA across the Forest Service units in this alternative. The 

prohibition of livestock grazing in PHMA would retain the most herbaceous cover for animal or 

nest concealment, seed production, insect production, and prey production among Alternatives in 

this habitat. These results would provide the greatest opportunity among alternatives for reduced 

predation and parasitism and individual fitness in PHMA.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to sagebrush associated species and their 

habitat than other alternatives. Many conservation measures would be applied to GRSG GHMA

in addition to PHMA. Therefore, conservation measures would benefit more than 600,000 acres 

of habitat than most other alternatives. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 

348,750 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). No 

exceptions, waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&C will be considered 

within priority (235,076 acres) and GHGHMA. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no 

new nominations would be accepted for parcels within priority or GHGHMA. Geophysical 

exploration would only be allowed in priority and GHGHMA to obtain exploratory information 

for areas outside of and adjacent to these habitats. It would be subject to seasonal restrictions 

that preclude activities in GRSG breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats during their 

use season by GRSG. All PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing.

PHMA would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits. Overall, 

habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance would be reduced. There could be significant

reduction in disruption of nesting and birthing activities, abandonment of young, or temporary 

displacement for sagebrush associated species. (See Appendix 1 at the end of this document for 

specific acres of other land use restriction by Alternative.)

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in priority and GHMA promoting the 

conservation of mature sagebrush habitat. Sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be 

reduced to less than 15 percent. Prescribed burning in priority and GH would be avoided in <12 

inch precipitation zone. This alternative conserves more sagebrush habitat with higher canopy 

95
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

cover than all other alternatives. Consequently, there would be less early stage sagebrush 

communities for some species.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Sagebrush habitat also occurs on private, state, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional loss, degradation, 

or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, 

range management, and fire and fuels management in sagebrush habitat on these other 

ownerships. However, this alternative substantially limits anthropogenic disturbances in priority 

and GHMA on federal lands benefitting sagebrush associated species. Cumulative effects are 

discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.

Summary of Alternative C

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in Alternative C in 

priority and GHMA would noticeably reduce impacts on sagebrush associated species. Proposed 

management would have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated species.

Determinations are consistent for the TBNG, B-T, and MB. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s bigeared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous Hawk, Northern 

harrier, Short-eared owl, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharptailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, White-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket 

gopher, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on the MB.

Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk

and Boreal toad on the BT.

96
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative D

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 

9 percent disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does 

require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential 

changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very similar to but 

slightly less detrimental to sagebrush associated species than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA will be allowed > 0.25 miles from the four

known leks on the BT, numerous leks on TBNG, and any new leks. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except Alternative A. In particular, this 

disturbance would affect 39 percent of the TBNG. Impacts on the Forests would be much 

smaller. (See Appendix 1 at the end of this document for specific acres of land use restriction by 

alternative.)

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. There would be 106,092 acres of ROW exclusion 

areas in sagebrush habitat (Appendix 1). This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

These same uses would be allowed in GHMA.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. A few slight differences include 

Alternative D recommendations considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and 

changes in response to drought in priority core habitat. Priority core habitat accounts for <2

percent of the land cover in the Forests and 39 percent of the Grassland so improvements would 

be variable and localized. There could be areas of improved habitat for productive breeding, 

foraging, and cover for sagebrush associated species. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and a three disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that do not exist 

in Alternative A. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 6740 acres of GRSG habitat on 

federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Recent work from developed natural gas 

fields in Wyoming (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2011) documents 10-20 percent declines in the 

abundance of certain sagebrush obligates. The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush 

97
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

outside of PHMA could lead to increased disturbance, loss of habitat, or degradation of habitat. 

(See Appendix 1 at the end of this document for specific acres of other land use restriction by 

alternative.)

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Sagebrush treatment would follow 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Protocols for treating sagebrush to benefit GRSG; a tool 

to determine whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” contributing toward the 9 

percent threshold. Treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range which 

reduces dense sagebrush cover for other species. Treated areas would not be rested from 

livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack 

of cover. These limited conservation measures in PHMA and the lack of measures in the 

remainder of sagebrush habitat would have detrimental impacts on sagebrush associated species.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Sagebrush habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest Service units. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands especially 

BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from 

recreation and travel, ROWs, energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and 

fuels management in sagebrush habitat. The combined impact is a trend toward more loss and 

fragmentation of sagebrush habitat; more early succession grass-dominated habitat; more 

disturbances in sagebrush habitat; and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative plants.

Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 

for this GRSG amendment.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. However, this alternative includes a cap on 

disturbance in PHMA; there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance of 9 percent

disturbance in PHMA, which only conserves a small portion of sagebrush habitat across all the 

units, and the limited conservation measures in other sagebrush habitat will have detrimental 

impacts on sagebrush associated species compared to Alternatives B, C, and E. Allowable 

activities could cause substantial changes in sagebrush habitat quantity, quality, and 

fragmentation.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Proposed management allowances would have impacts 

98
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

on individuals of the sagebrush associated species. Determinations are consistent for the TBNG, 

the BT, and the MB. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s bigeared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Short-eared owl, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharptailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, White-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket 

gopher, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on the MB.

Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk

and Boreal toad on the BT.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs (>380,000 acres). Similarly, secondary road 

construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs and both 

would be prohibited within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades would be prohibited 

in PHMA and SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would be limited to the 

minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA and 

SFAs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 on 

or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses would be allowed as 

long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA and SFAs. Conservation measures 

would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than Alternatives A and D but less 

restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less 

disruption of nesting or hatching, abandonment of young, or temporary displacement in 

sagebrush habitat compared to Alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some short-term impacts could occur. Some small amount of sagebrush habitat could be lost, 

degraded or disturbed due to the 5 percent allowance for sagebrush habitat lost in PHMA or 

SFAs. The Proposed Plan Amendment includes >380,000 acres as PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in designated transmission 

corridors, allow power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs, and allow some 

99
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

special uses. However, there would be 5362 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat

(Appendix 1). Small sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because sagebrush habitat could 

be exchanged to other ownership in limited situations. Overall, impacts on sagebrush habitat and 

sagebrush associated species would be reduced compared to Alternatives A and D and would be 

greater than impacts to sagebrush habitat in Alternative C. This alternative would retain 

>358,400 acres of sagebrush habitat with the 5 percent disturbance limit compared to 227,582 

acres of PHMA retained in Alternative B with a 3 percent disturbance limit. (See Appendix 1 at 

the end of this document for specific acres of other land use restriction by alternative.)

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks and in other seasonal habitats. Most 

conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. There are >380,000 acres of PHMA and SFAs 

across the Forest Service units in this alternative. Livestock grazing and associated range 

improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that contributes to rangeland 

health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These measures would also maintain 

or improve sagebrush habitat quality for sagebrush associated species. There could be areas of 

improved habitat for productive breeding, foraging, and cover for sagebrush associated species.

There would be some exceptions to meeting conservation measures for areas with <200 acres of 

GRSG habitat in isolated parcels of Forest Service lands, in Management Areas 8.4 and 3.63 

(Minerals Management and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat) on TBNG, and where 

>90 percent of an allotment on TBNG occurs within nesting or brood rearing habitat. 

Potential adverse effects on sagebrush associated species from these exceptions in specific areas 

could include habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure development and habitat conversion of 

sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage. There could also be site specific 

overgrazing during drought years with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of 

residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related impacts could include higher 

predation and a reduction of herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover or forage.

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in PHMA and SFAs 

(>380,000 acres) and GHMA (>470,000 acres) more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B 

provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA (234,621 acres), none in SFAs, and not 

as much within GHMA (614,673 acres delete). Alternative C would apply to 849,294 acres of 

combined PHMA and most often GHMA.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals’ operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit and one 

facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs. For example, fluid mineral leasing 

would be closed on 3343 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases 

100
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

(Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, conditions can be added for the protection of 

GRSG or its habitats. There are timing and/or distance restrictions for PHMA, SFAs, and 

GHMA during breeding and winter concentration. All timing, distance, density, and disturbance 

restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable and locatable mineral activities as 

well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments, will be constructed to reduce the 

potential for West Nile virus.

Conservation measures in PHMA and SFAs and often, GHMA, would provide habitat benefits to 

sagebrush associated species. The conservation measures for this alternative maintain or protect 

sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. For example, 

Alternative A has no disturbance limit and Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance limit 

compared to 5 percent for this alternative. Alternative D also allows three energy production 

locations per 640 acres and Alternative A has no limitation. Alternative B is often more 

restrictive but covers fewer acres of sagebrush. Alternative C is generally more restrictive or 

prohibitive to energy development than this alternative. (See Appendix 1 at the end of this 

document for specific acres of other land use restriction by Alternative.)

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs and, most often, also in GHMA. There is a 5 percent

disturbance limit for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs. In addition, vegetation 

treatment in PHMA and SFAs in nesting and wintering habitat in northeast Wyoming that would 

reduce sagebrush canopy to <15 percent would be restricted.

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to sagebrush associated species than 

Alternatives A and D considering, for example, a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent

disturbance limit for these Alternatives respectively. Impacts on mature sagebrush habitat and 

sagebrush associated species would be reduced compared to these Alternatives. The Proposed 

Plan Amendment is generally similar to Alternatives B and C, but is less restrictive in a few 

conservation measures. In the Proposed Plan Amendment, sagebrush treatment would be limited 

by Table 1 Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions, the 5 percent disturbance cap, and standards 

and guidelines for fire management in order to maintain sagebrush in priority and GHMA and 

SFAs. Consequently, there would be less early stage sagebrush communities for some species.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Sagebrush habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the 

Forest units. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There 

are some existing conservation measures on these other lands especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

there could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs

granted, energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in 

sagebrush habitat. However, anthropogenic disturbances >5 percent on all ownerships in PHMA

101
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

and SFAs would restrict more disturbance on federal lands. Cumulative effects are discussed in 

greater detail in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent and one

disturbance per 640 acres. This 5 percent disturbance allowance in PHMA and SFAs will cause 

some loss of sagebrush habitat for sagebrush associated species. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PHMA and SFAs and often, GHMA. In total, there are >850,000 acres of 

combined PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA on the BT across these National Forest System lands 

addressed by conservation measures. There would be less loss or fragmentation of mature 

sagebrush habitat. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat will occur as they do 

currently or could expand as existing direction allows. Overall, effects of the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would be less impacting to sagebrush associated species than Alternatives A and D.

Impacts would be more pronounced than Alternative C. Alternative B includes greater habitat 

protection in many cases but addresses a smaller area.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes occurred particularly on the Grassland. Habitat 

is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would reduce impacts on sagebrush associated species. Proposed management 

would have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated species. Determinations are 

consistent for the TBNG, BT, and MB. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, fringed myotis, Townsend’s bigeared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Ferruginous hawk, Northern 

harrier, Short-eared owl, Loggerhead shrike, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Columbian sharptailed grouse, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, White-tailed prairie dog, Wyoming pocket 

gopher, Fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Spotted bat, and Hoary bat on the MB.

Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Northern goshawk

and Boreal toad on the BT.

C. Grassland Associated Species

The Black-tailed prairie dog, Swift fox, Long-billed curlew, Burrowing owl, Chestnut-collared 

longspur, McCown’s longspur, Mountain plover, and Grasshopper Sparrow were grouped for 

this analysis due to the similar nature of the habitats occupied by these animals. Though species 

specific effects may differ slightly, the programmatic nature and landscape scale effects will be 

generally and collectively analyzed for this group of species. As the nature of the project is to 

102
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

amend the Forest and Grassland Plans to include regulatory mechanisms and conservation 

measures to protect sagebrush habitats for GRSG, the effects would generally be similar to 

effects on GRSG and are covered in the above analysis.

Mixed Grass Prairie

Western wheatgrass can form an unbroken sod cover in some cases. Sandberg’s bluegrass is 

abundant and prairie junegrass and green needlegrass are also present. Blue grama can be found, 

but in low abundance. A diverse component of forbs can be found as compared to the association 

described above. Western yarrow is the dominant forb found in this plant association. The 

species associated with this habitat type tend to rely on taller structural habitat conditions. Those 

sensitive species associated with the mixed grass prairie are Grasshopper Sparrow (breeding and 

summer) and chestnut-collared longspur (breeding and summer).

Short-Grass Prairie

Depending on the ecological site, early seral stages in upland plant communities are attributed to 

a high canopy cover of perennial plant species such as blue grama and red three awn or annual 

plant species such as six weeks fescue. Some upland sites also have high canopy covers of Plains 

prickly pear cactus and/or high densities of nonnative invasive species such as cheatgrass and 

Japanese Brome. The species associated with this habitat type rely on relatively low vegetation 

conditions

Those sensitive species associated with a short-grass system are black-tailed prairie dog 

(yearlong), swift fox (yearlong), long-billed curlew (breeding and summer), burrowing owl 

(breeding and summer), McCown’s longspur (breeding and summer), and mountain plover 

(breeding and summer).

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

Currently there is not a Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for the black-tailed prairie 

dog.

Distribution

Black-tailed prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and 

mixed-grass prairies. This R2 sensitive species is a common resident in the short- and mid-grass 

habitats of eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG harbors one of the seven major 

colony complexes remaining in North America.

Habitat Associations and Threats

This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming 

(Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining 

in North America. Black-tailed prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal burrowing rodents that 

typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a prairie 

dog population. Black-tailed prairie dog abundance and occupied acreage have been dramatically 

reduced throughout its historic range and continue to exhibit a slow decline (NatureServe 2004).

103
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Major factors contributing to the reduction include disease (sylvatic plague), urbanization, 

habitat conversion, and control efforts. Additional information (including population trend) on 

the black-tailed prairie dog will be provided as a part of the Management Indicator Species 

section of this report.

Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)

The following is a habitat description of the swift fox. This information represents selected direct 

quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (Stephens, R.M. and 

S.H. Anderson. 2005).

Distribution

The swift fox is native to the grassland prairies of the Great Plains region of North America 

(Kahn et al. 1997). Current known swift fox distribution is about 25 percent of its historic range 

from the literature or approximately 40 percent of the suggested historic range based on 

vegetation classification mapping of the short-grass and mid-grass prairie grassland types in the 

central United States (Figure 1). Distributions and associated densities appear highly variable 

among the occupied states (Kahn et al. 1997). The present known range is constricted and 

somewhat disjunct, with an identified population core present in the states of southeastern 

Wyoming (Figure 2), eastern Colorado, and western Kansas (Figure 4) (Kahn et al. 1997).

Habitat Associations and Threats

Swift foxes occur in the Great Plains in a variety of habitats including short-grass and mid-grass 

prairies, plowed fields and fencerows, and sagebrush (Egoscue 1979, Jones et al. 1985, Uresk 

and Sharps 1986, Sovada et al. 1998, Olson and Lindzey 2002). They select habitat with lowgrowing vegetation and relatively flat terrain, friable soils and high den availability, and areas 

near roads. Swift foxes are the most burrow-dependent canid in North America (Jackson and

Choate 2000). Several studies have also reported that swift foxes select habitat adjacent to roads 

(Hillman and Sharps 1978, Hines and Case 1991, Pruss 1999, Olsen 2000).Swift foxes typically 

use relatively open short-grass prairie habitats with high visibility (Kilgore 1969), which is likely 

related to predator avoidance. Swift foxes killed by predators were found in sagebrush vegetation 

more than expected; this suggests that the risk of death was greater in sagebrush than other 

vegetation types. This appears to be balanced out by higher recruitment in home ranges with a 

larger proportion of sagebrush as these foxes were observed with bigger litters. Olsen (2000) 

concluded that low-growing (<30 centimeters) and low-density (16 percent cover) sagebrush 

vegetation should be considered suitable swift fox habitat.

The key threats identified to swift fox within R2 include: competition with coyotes and red 

foxes; habitat loss or fragmentation; vehicle collisions inadvertent poisoning; hunting and 

trapping; and management to increase tall vegetation. 

104
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)

The following is a habitat description of the Long-billed Curlew. This information represents 

selected direct quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species 

(Sedgwick, J.A. 2006).

Distribution

The distribution of long-billed curlew breeding populations is disjunct corresponding to the now 

fragmented distribution of the short-grass and mixed-grass prairies of the Great Plains, Great 

Basin, and intermontane valleys of the western U. S. and southwestern Canada. Long-billed 

curlews breed from: southern British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan; south to 

northeastern New Mexico; central Nevada; northern Utah; and east to southwestern North 

Dakota and central South Dakota and Nebraska. Long-billed curlews breed: east of the Cascades 

in Washington and Oregon; in northeastern California and southern Idaho; east of the Rockies in 

Montana; and in Wyoming and eastern Colorado. In winter curlews are distributed in the U. S.

mostly in coastal and inland regions of California, Texas, and Louisiana.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Long-billed curlews are native prairie specialists, nesting primarily in short-grass or mixed-grass 

prairie habitat with flat to rolling topography (King 1978, Pampush 1980, Jenni et al. 1981, 

Pampush and Anthony 1993, Hooper and Pitt 1996). They prefer short vegetation, generally less 

than 30 centimeters tall (often less than 10 centimeters), and generally avoid habitats with trees, 

a high density of shrubs (e.g., sagebrush [Artemisia spp.]), and tall, dense grass (Pampush 1981, 

Campbell et al. 1990, Pampush and Anthony 1993). Curlews use taller, denser grass during 

brood rearing when shade and camouflage from predators are presumably more important for 

chicks (Jenni et al. 1981), but this may also reflect a decline in the availability of shorter habitats 

later in the season. 

Key threats identified for the curlew are: loss of grazing or overgrazing; fire suppression; 

introduction of exotic species such as crested wheatgrass; human disturbance associated 

particularly with recreation and energy development; loss or fragmentation of habitat; and 

pesticide spraying which significantly reduces arthropod abundance particularly grasshoppers 

(McEwen et al. 1972) a major food in the curlew’s diet.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

The following is a habitat description of the Burrowing Owl. This information is selected direct 

quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (McDonald, D., 

N.M. Korfanta, and S.J. Lantz. 2004).

Distribution

Burrowing owls are distributed throughout western North America and south from central 

Alberta to Tierra del Fuego in South America. Several studies have mapped actual burrowing 

owl locations in the Rocky Mountain Region. VerCauteren et al. (2001) surveyed for burrowing 

105
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

owls in eastern Colorado and found a majority of owls nesting on private lands (Figure 8). In 

Wyoming, records from the Wyoming Game and Fish Wildlife Observation (WOS) database 

show burrowing owl sightings throughout most of the state except for the northwest corner 

where prairie gives way to mountainous landscapes (Figure 9) (Korfanta et al. 2001). In recent 

years, burrowing owl surveys have been conducted within the TBNGs in northeastern Wyoming 

(Conway and Hughes 2001, Conway and Lantz 2002, Conway and Lantz 2003). Of the 73 prairie 

dog colonies surveyed, 40 percent of the colonies were occupied by burrowing owls in both 2002 

and 2003.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Burrowing owl habitat typically consists of open, dry, treeless areas on plains, prairies, and 

deserts. These areas are also occupied by burrowing mammals and other animals that provide 

nest burrows (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Haug et al. 1993). Because burrowing owls spend most 

of their time on or in the ground and are extremely susceptible to predation, short vegetation 

structure is also a requirement (Butts 1973, Zarn 1974, Green 1983, Plumpton 1992). Given this 

requirement for short vegetation, burrowing owls are commonly found in association with cattle, 

prairie dogs, and other grazers that clip vegetation (Konrad and Gilmer 1984).

The primary threats identified for burrowing owls include: habitat loss and fragmentation 

(especially prairie dog colonies); vehicular collisions; pesticides; domestic animals; losses on the 

wintering grounds; and recreational shooting of prairie dogs.

Chestnut-Collared Longspur (Calicarius ornatus)

The following is a habitat description of the Chestnut-Collared Longspur. This information is 

selected direct quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species 

(Sedgwick, J.A. 2004a). 

Distribution

The distribution of Chestnut-Collared Longspur breeding populations is disjunct, 

corresponding to the now fragmented distribution of the short-grass and mixed-grass prairies of 

the Great Plains and the southern fringe of the Canadian Prairie Provinces. Chestnut-collared 

Longspurs breed from southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba; south to northeastern 

Colorado and (formerly) extreme western Kansas; and east through North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and western and north-central Nebraska to western Minnesota (Figure 2) (Hill and Gould 1997, 

American Ornithologists’ Union 1998). The Forest Service R2 state with the highest average 

relative abundance of Chestnut-Collared Longspurs is South Dakota. In Nebraska, they breed in 

the northwest (Johnsgard 1979); and in Colorado, they are known to breed in Weld and 

Washington Counties in the northeast (Andrews and Righter 1992, Pantle 1998); in Wyoming, 

Chestnut-Collared longspurs breed most commonly in the northeast and southeast (Oakleaf et al. 

1992).

106
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Habitat Associations and Threats

Chestnut-Collared Longspurs are native prairie specialists preferring level to rolling native 

mixed-grass and short-grass uplands, and in drier habitats moist lowlands (DuBois 1935, 

Fairfield 1968, Owens and Myres 1973, Stewart 1975, Wiens and Dyer 1975, Kantrud and 

Kologiski 1982, Anstey et al. 1995). Breeding habitat is typically mixed-grass or short-grass 

prairie <20 to 30 centimeters tall that has been recently grazed or mowed (Fairfield 1968, Owens 

and Myres 1973). Pastures planted with exotic grasses such as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron 

cirstatum) are also used as are mowed areas such as airstrips (Stewart 1975), but native pastures 

are preferred. Grazed or mowed tallgrass prairie is also used during the breeding season 

(Wyckoff 1986). 

Compared to McCown’s longspur, the Chestnut-Collared Longspur prefers areas with taller grass 

species such as needlegrasses (Stipa spp.) and wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.) (Baldwin and 

Creighton 1972). Chestnut-Collared Longspurs avoid excessively shrubby areas (Arnold and 

Higgins 1986) and grasslands with dense litter accumulations (Renken 1983, Berkey et al. 1993, 

Anstey et al. 1995). Within drier short-grass habitats, Chestnut-Collared Longspurs prefer wetter, 

taller, and more densely vegetated areas than McCown’s longspurs and horned larks 

(Eremophila alpestris) (DuBois 1937, Strong 1971, Creighton and Baldwin 1974, Kantrud and 

Kologiski 1982, Wershler et al. 1991). Low, moist areas and wet-meadow zones around wetlands 

provide suitable habitat in these drier, short-grass areas (DuBois 1937, Rand 1948, Stewart 

1975).

The primary threats to this bird include most of the declines in Chestnut-Collared Longspur 

populations both past and present which have been attributed to land-use practices that destroy 

native prairie (Fairfield 1968, Oberholser 1974, Gollop 1978, McNicholl 1988, Hill and Gould 

1997). Both overgrazing and the loss of grazing can have a negative impact on this bird. In 

winter changing grazing practices in conjunction with variable rainfall and changing cultivation 

practices can also threaten Chestnut Collared Longspur population stability. The loss of fire over 

the landscape also can negatively impact Chestnut-Collared Longspurs as can prairie restoration 

efforts that seeded degraded grasslands with taller, exotic grasses.

McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius mccownii)

The following is a habitat description of the McCown’s Longspur. This information is selected 

direct quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (Sedgwick, 

J.A. 2004b).

Distribution

The distribution of breeding populations is disjunct corresponding to the now fragmented 

distribution of the short-grass prairies of the Great Plains and the southern fringe of the Canadian 

Prairie Provinces. Furthermore, both breeding and winter distributions may shift annually as 

McCown’s is nomadic to some extent, making “somewhat erratic appearances and 

disappearance” at certain times and in certain places (Bent 1968). McCown’s Longspurs breed in 

107
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

loose colonies from southeastern Alberta east to southern Saskatchewan; south through Montana;

eastern and central Wyoming; to western North Dakota and South Dakota; and western Nebraska 

to northeastern Colorado (Godfrey 1986, With 1994, Dechant et al. 1999). They winter in the 

southern US from western Oklahoma south through eastern New Mexico and central and west 

Texas into northern Mexico.

Habitat Associations and Threats

McCown’s Longspurs breed in shortgrass prairie especially where vegetation coverage is sparse 

due to low soil moisture or heavy grazing, or where it is interspersed with shrubs or taller 

grasses. McCown’s Longspurs use grasslands with little (Felske 1971) and low vegetation cover 

(DuBois 1935, Creighton 1974) such as provided by true native short-grass prairie or heavily 

grazed mixed-grass prairie. McCown’s Longspurs prefer to breed in heavily grazed areas 

(Bradley personal communication), and they respond positively to livestock grazing (Bock et al. 

1993). In Colorado individuals often use sparsely vegetated hillsides with southern exposures for 

displaying and nesting (Giezentanner 1970a and 1970b, Felske 1971, Creighton 1974).

In southeastern Wyoming preferential placement of territories on areas with a high percent of 

bare ground was attributed to microclimate effects such as early warming and drying of nest sites 

(Greer 1988). Percent vegetation coverage within five centimeters of the ground was higher in 

occupied territories than in unoccupied territories in Wyoming. 

The primary threats to the McCown’s Longspur are overgrazing in some cases, energy 

development through loss or fragmentation of habitat (well pads, roads, pipelines, storage tanks, 

power lines, compressor and pumping stations), disturbance (drilling, vehicle traffic), or 

environmental contamination. Recreation is increasing in R2 (Forest Service 2002), and the 

negative effects of recreation on bird species composition and nest placement in both forests and 

grasslands have recently been documented (e.g., Miller et al. 1998). In addition to direct 

mortality, pesticide applications may also result in reduced food delivery rates, lowered avian 

densities, and depressed brain acetylcholinesterase activities (Martin et al. 2000).

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)

The following is a habitat description of the Mountain Plover. This information is selected direct 

quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (Dinsmore 2003).

Distribution

Mountain plovers breed primarily in eastern Colorado, central Wyoming, and eastern Montana 

(Knopf 1996a) and more locally in northern Mexico (state of Nuevo León) (Knopf and Rupert 

1999b, Desmond and Ramirez 2002), Texas (Davis Mountains), northeastern New Mexico 

(Hubbard 1978, Sager 1996), western Oklahoma (primarily the Panhandle; Shackford 1991), 

southwestern Kansas (primarily Morton County; Fellows and Gress 1999), southwestern 

Nebraska (Kimball County; Dinsmore 1997), northeastern Utah (Myton Bench area; Day 1994, 

Ellison-Manning and White 2001), Arizona (U.S. Department of the Interior 1999), and 

108
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

southeastern Alberta (Wallis and Wershler 1981, Knopf 1996a) (Figure 3). They are common 

nowhere, but probably reach their greatest abundance in the central portions of the breeding 

range in eastern Colorado and Wyoming. Most Mountain Plovers are thought to winter in the 

Imperial Valley in southern California.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Mountain Plovers are a disturbed-prairie or semi-desert species rather than a grassland species 

(Knopf and Miller 1994), and they are often characterized as a breeding bird of high plains and 

desert tablelands (Graul 1975, Knopf 1996a, 1996b). They prefer disturbed habitats for nesting 

including areas formerly occupied by bison (Knopf 1996a) and prairie dogs (Knowles et al. 

1982, Samson and Knopf 1994, Knopf 1996a) and agricultural fields (Knopf and Rupert 1999a, 

Shackford et al. 1999). Mountain Plover are associated with areas of disturbance for nesting. 

Disturbance like fire or grazing seems necessary to meet the specific habitat requirements of the 

plover and may provide secondary benefits such as increased food resources. Areas used for 

nesting include: native short- and mixed-grass prairie, semi-desert sites, and prairie dog 

colonies. Throughout their range, mountain plovers selectively nest on active prairie dog 

colonies, and agricultural lands. 

Specific threats to the Mountain Plover within and outside of R2 include: loss of native habitats;

loss of prairie dogs; alteration of current grazing regimes; agricultural lands as a reproductive 

sink; habitat fragmentation; energy development; and potentially pesticides. It is worth 

acknowledging that the Mountain Plover can come into contact with numerous pesticides used to 

control insects and some of these may have unknown negative consequences for the Mountain 

Plover.

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

The following is a habitat description of the Grasshopper Sparrow. This information is selected 

direct quotes from the Forest Service R2 Conservation Assessment for this species (Slater 2004).

Distribution

The Grasshopper Sparrow has a widespread distribution throughout most of the Americas, but it 

often breeds locally and is considered rare to uncommon in much of its range (Vickery 1996). In 

western North America, Grasshopper Sparrows breed in: southern British Columbia, eastern 

Washington and Oregon, central Idaho, northeastern Nevada, northern Utah, southwestern 

Wyoming, north-central Nevada, along the California coast, the western edge of the Sierra 

Nevada, and in northwestern Baja California (where they are resident) (Vickery 1996). 

Grasshopper Sparrows winter north across the southeastern U. S., west through Texas, southern 

Arizona, and southern California (Sauer et al. 1996, Vickery 1996). The species winters south to 

southern Baja California and Chiapas, Mexico, southern Guatemala, northern El Salvador, and 

southwestern Honduras, the Valle Central of Costa Rica, the Gulf coast, southern Florida, north 

Bahama Island, and Cuba.

109
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Habitat Associations and Threats

The Grasshopper Sparrow is found in a broad array of open grassland types, but it is notably 

area-sensitive, preferring large grassland patches greater than eight hectares in size (Samson 

1980, Herkert 1994, Vickery et al. 1994, Helzer 1996). Minimum area requirements vary over 

the species’ range. In Nebraska, Grasshopper Sparrows were found in fragments larger than eight

hectares (Helzer 1996). Within open grasslands of suitable patch size, Grasshopper Sparrows 

prefer grasslands habitats of intermediate height (~30 centimeters) with clumped vegetation 

interspersed with patchy bare ground and sparse shrub cover (Bent 1968, Vickery 1996, Dechant 

et al. 2001). In arid grasslands of the west and southwest, they occupy lusher areas with small 

amounts (<35 percent) of shrub or tall forbs. Besides native prairie, Grasshopper Sparrows 

breeding habitat also includes pasture, hayland, Conservation Reserve Program fields, airports, 

and reclaimed surface mines (Whitmore 1980, Vickery 1996, Dechant et al. 2001). 

In R2, Grasshopper Sparrows are found in Wyoming in mixed- and northern short-grass prairies 

and open sagebrush grasslands (Cerovski et al. 2001). Grasshopper sparrows avoid habitats 

where vegetation is less than 10 centimeters (Wiens 1973) and appear to prefer grass heights of 

~30 centimeters and mean grass cover values of >50 percent. Grasshopper sparrows require 

some areas of bare ground for foraging, but it is unclear how much is desirable; most empirical 

studies suggest a range of 2 to 34 percent. Grasshopper sparrows require some taller vegetation 

such as tall grasses, forbs, or scattered shrubs to use as singing perches during territory 

establishment and for defense. However, they avoid habitats where shrub cover exceeds 35 

percent (Smith 1968, Bock and Webb 1984). Scattered trees provide acceptable habitat and are 

used as song perches (Johnsgard 1979).

Within the states of Forest Service R2, which represent the core of this species’ breeding range, 

Grasshopper Sparrow populations have also exhibited long-term declines. Today the greatest 

threats to the grassland avifauna in R2 including the Grasshopper Sparrow, continue to be habitat 

loss, habitat fragmentation, and habitat degradation from grazing and fire regimes that often fail 

to replicate the natural dynamics under which these species and their habitats evolved (Samson 

and Knopf 1994, Vickery et al. 2000). In the arid, short-stature grassland communities of R2, 

frequent disturbances negatively affect sparrow habitat. Specific threats to Grasshopper Sparrow

habitat and its populations are urban development and conversion of grasslands to cropland, 

overgrazing in mixed- and short-grass prairies are a serious threats to Grasshopper Sparrow

habitats. They are also more likely to utilize patches with larger core areas and less edge (i.e., 

circular patches) (Helzer and Jelinski 1999).

110
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative A - No Action

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

There would be no changes to the current TBNG system roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new roads and 

upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There is a current Travel Management Plan in 

place addressing all non-special use travel on TBNG. Restrictions on special uses may apply, but 

off-road permits are still issued. These activities would continue on 224,124 acres of PHMA and 

329,740 acres of GHMA and there would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of 

sagebrush habitat lost to road construction. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and 

use equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance. Motorized 

access to most of TBNG is present on authorized roads and usually means higher concentrations 

of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in habitat. In addition, with increased road use, 

comes increased noise which has been identified as a specific stressor on wildlife. In this 

alternative noise associated with traffic would not be moderated. 

Lands and Realty

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands. There would be 1802 acres 

of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). Some habitats could be traded to other 

ownership which improves habitat for other R2 Sensitive Species. The parcels are isolated; lands 

that would reduce boundary conflicts with other ownerships; or are otherwise in the public 

interest. All Forest Service lands would continue to be managed according to Forest Service

policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and 

operation activities that may result in habitat loss, fragmentation, or degradation. Other impacts 

may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat.

Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or 

degradation of habitat.

Range

There is no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the National 

Grassland. Livestock grazing is permitted across GRSG habitat on the TBNG. Range 

improvements are designed to not have a direct negative effect on wildlife. Potential adverse 

effects on grassland habitats could include habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure

development, moderate to heavy livestock grazing, and site specific overgrazing during drought 

years with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet 

other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and young mortality 

due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

111
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Energy and Minerals

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas has been a predominant use of public 

lands on the TBNG. Fluid mineral leasing is closed on 0 acres of GRSG habitat as an example 

(Appendix 1). In this alternative there would be no cap on surface disturbing activities. The 

above mentioned energy development may still cause impacts as they relate to the: increased 

anthropogenic disturbance of habitat; off-road vehicle use; increased traffic on Forest Service

and mineral development roads; new road construction; road traffic speed; utility corridor 

permits or easements; water development; mineral leasing and development; surface occupancy 

on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial campsites; and development or removal of mineral 

materials. Other restrictions are identified in Appendix 1.

Fire and Fuels Management

Species using this habitat type prefer tall, ungrazed to lightly grazed grasslands. There is no 

disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush moved into an early successional stage by wildfires and 

prescribed fires. Both prescribed and wild fire has provided benefits to this habitat type through 

the conversion of sagebrush to a grass dominant condition. This reduction has come about from a 

variety of activities including wildfire and prescribed. In several cases, these prescribed burns 

have been designed to specifically improve grassland habitats. Since these species prefer tall and

ungrazed to lightly grazed grasslands, both prescribed and wildfire have provided benefits to 

habitat condition.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in 

addition to impacts described above. Grassland habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLMadministered land adjacent to the Grassland and Forest units. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

development, range management, and fire and fuels management in the grassland habitat. These 

cumulative effects are discussed in greater detail in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 

for this GRSG amendment.

Summary of Alternative A

Existing levels of habitat alteration or loss and disturbance would continue or could increase.

Limitations would be provided only by the units LMRP guidance which generally allows 

substantial disturbance and habitat loss or modification in grassland habitat. These could allow 

substantial changes in habitat quantity, quality, and ownership on each Grassland or Forest unit.

Currently, some of the potential habitat (PHMA) changes have occurred including positive 

habitat improvements due to prescribed and wildfire particularly on the Grassland. Habitat is 

generally intact in most areas. Full use of Alternative A measures limit some impacts on 

grassland associated species. Proposed management would still have negative impacts on 

112
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

individuals of the grassland associated species. Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact 

individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area nor cause a trend 

toward federal listing” for the black-tailed prairie dog, swift fox, long-billed curlew, burrowing 

owl, chestnut-collared longspur, McCown’s longspur, mountain plover, and Grasshopper 

Sparrow on the TBNG.

Alternative B

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

In PHMA new road construction would be limited to areas with less than 3 percent habitat 

disturbance and would be allowed only the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading 

of current roads. Existing roads not designated in a Travel Management Plan would be 

reclaimed. All travel would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be 

permitted in PHMA if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. Road associated noise 

would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient levels which are lower in this alternative 

(20-24 decibels) than Alternative A. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These restrictions on travel and recreation activities result in less disruption 

of grassland habitat bringing about reduced impacts on breeding and a reduction of road 

associated mortality. These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation 

measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C.

Lands and Realty

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects (Appendix 1). In addition, Alternative B would encourage 

consolidation and acquisition of GRSG PHMA. These conservation measures would be more 

protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but less protective than 

Alternative C.

Range

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA. There are 224,124 acres of 

PHMA across the TBNG in this alternative. Many livestock improvements could occur only if 

beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly 

grazed. Fencing would be developed to reflect GRSG needs in all GRSG habitats. Outside of 

PHMA, the potential effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range 

improvements would be the same as Alternative A. Potential adverse effects on grassland

associated species could include habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure development and site 

specific overgrazing during drought years with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and 

diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Inside of PHMA, the focus 

on lighter grazing would also provide additional positive impact for grassland species in the form 

of higher residual grasses for hiding cover, nesting cover, and predator avoidance. Conservation

113
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A and D, but less 

protective than Alternatives C and E.

Energy and Minerals

PHMA would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials, and fluid mineral 

leases. Existing leases would have a four mile, no surface occupancy buffer around leks. COAs 

would be attached to existing leases during analysis and approval of exploration and 

development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts on GRSG through a project design. 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for GRSG would 

not be considered within GRSG PHMA. Outside of PHMA, mineral development would be the 

same as Alternative A. Impacts associated with energy-related anthropomorphic disturbances 

such as habitat fragmentation, noise, and habitat loss would be reduced for grassland associated 

species improving the quality of the available habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would 

be closed on 333,748 acres of GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). This alternative better conserves 

PHMA and some grassland species habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to 

Alternative C in PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA and fuel treatments would 

emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection would 

be emphasized. In GRSG PHMA within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, fire is not used 

to treat sagebrush unless as a last resort for fuel breaks and it must be within a 3 percent

disturbance limit. Fire would not be restricted in grassland habitats without sagebrush as a 

component. Fire can provide improved habitat conditions for grassland associated species by 

increasing grassland habitat and reducing shrub species. The restriction of this tool within 

PHMA would limit the potential for habitat expansion for grassland habitats. This alternative 

conserves more sagebrush habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E, but conserves less than 

Alternative C.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Grassland habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLMadministered land adjacent to the Grassland or Forest units. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

development, range management, and fire and fuels management in grassland habitat. However, 

anthropogenic disturbances >3 percent on all ownerships in PHMA would restrict more 

disturbance on federal lands. These cumulative effects are discussed in greater detail in Manier et 

al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

114
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in PHMA. There would be benefits to 

individuals and other habitat types such as grassland that occur in PHMA. Generally, activities in 

GHMA and associated habitats, such as grassland, will occur as they do currently or they could 

have minor expansion as existing direction allows. In general, most conservation measures 

would limit anthropomorphic disturbances that could have negative impacts on grassland

habitats. The loss of fire in the sagebrush habitat would limit some habitat expansion for 

grassland.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in Alternative B in 

PHMA would reduce some impacts on grassland associated species. Proposed management 

would have impacts on individual grassland associated species. Therefore, this alternative “may 

adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, 

nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, Swift Fox, LongBilled Curlew, Burrowing Owl, Chestnut-Collared Longspur, McCown’s Longspur, Mountain 

Plover, and Grasshopper Sparrow on the TBNG.

Alternative C

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

In this alternative, conservation measures are generally applied to both PHMA and GHMA. 

GRSG PHMA and GHMA would be managed as exclusion areas for new SUA permits (see 

Appendix 1). New road construction would be prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks 

and avoided in PHMA and GHMA. Existing road management would be designed to maintain or 

improve both PHMA and GHMA. Road associated noise would be limited to less than 10 

decibels above ambient levels (20-24 decibels). Camping and other non-motorized recreation 

would be seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These restrictions on 

travel and recreation activities result in the least disruption of grassland habitat, bringing about 

reduced impacts on breeding, and a reduction of road associated mortality.

Lands and Realty

No GRSG habitat in PHMA would be exchanged away. GRSG priority and GHMA would be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW permits (see Appendix 1). The Forest Service 

will strive to acquire important private lands in areas identified as GRSG Special Areas. 

Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of GRSG habitat. This could cause 

the loss of some mixed grass prairie habitat in exchange for GRSG habitat.

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within GRSG PHMA. There are 224,124 acres of PHMA

across the TBNG. All new structural range developments and location of supplements would be 

115
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

avoided in both PHMA and GHMA unless they can be shown to benefit GRSG. Grazing and 

trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats would be avoided during 

periods of the year when these habitats are utilized by GRSG. Post-fire for both prescribed and 

wildfire monitoring is required in all GRSG habitat to re-establish grazing. Within GRSG PHMA

and GHMA, livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas until woody and 

herbaceous plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives. Since grassland associated species generally 

thrive in ungrazed to lightly grazed areas, these conservation measures would be a positive 

influence for them.

Energy and Minerals

Many conservation measures would be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, 

conservation measures would benefit more than 300,000 more acres of habitat than other 

alternatives. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 1,089,200 acres of GRSG 

habitat (Appendix 1). No exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and 

T&Cs will be considered within GRSG PHMA and GHMA. Both GRSG PHMA and GHMA

would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new 

nominations/expressions of interest would be accepted for parcels within GRSG PHMA or 

GHMA. Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed in GRSG PHMA. Geophysical exploration 

would only be allowed in GHMA to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and 

adjacent to PHMA and GHMA would be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities 

in breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of use by GRSG. 

Where existing leases exist in all GRSG habitat, stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their 

habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and development activities. No 

construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater would 

be allowed. All PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. GRSG PHMA

would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits. These measures 

would promote the least disturbance and habitat loss among Alternatives.

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all GRSG habitat on the TBNG, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented 

with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all GRSG habitats, 

sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Also, 

sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15 percent within any 

GRSG habitat and vegetation treatments in both habitats would be designed to create landscape 

patterns which benefit GRSG the most. For all GRSG habitat, fire would not be used to treat 

sagebrush in precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel break. 

Post-fuels management projects will be designed to ensure the long-term persistence of seeded or 

pre-treatment native plants including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan must include 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing enclosures, and include 

long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before grazing 

returns. Grazing should not return to the burn area until woody and herbaceous plants achieve 

116
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

GRSG habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in known GRSG winter range 

unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter 

range and they will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels reduction project (roadsides or 

other areas) in all GRSG habitat would utilize mowing of grass. In PHMA, fire suppression to 

conserve the GRSG habitat would be prioritized immediately after firefighter and public safety.

This alternative conserves more sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other 

alternatives.

Fire would not be restricted in grassland habitats without sagebrush as a component; however, 

grassland also occurs within both PHMA and GHMA. Since fire can provide improved habitat 

conditions for grassland associated species by increasing grassland habitat and reducing shrub 

species, the restriction of this tool within all GRSG habitats would limit the potential for habitat 

expansion for grassland habitats.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Grassland habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLMadministered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. Activities occurring in the five resource 

areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these 

other lands especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional loss, degradation, 

or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, 

range management, and fire and fuels management in grassland habitat. Overall, grassland

habitat is expected to be maintained or improve slightly. The reduction in the availability of fire 

is expected to contribute to a slower expansion of the habitat, but other conservation measures 

would off-set this by precluding impacts on existing habitat. These cumulative effects are 

discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment

Summary of Alternative C

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Grassland habitat is generally intact in most areas and expanding due to wildfire. Full use of 

conservation measures in Alternative C in PHMA and GHMA would noticeably reduce the 

anthropomorphic impacts compared to other alternatives to grassland associated species such as 

habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in grassland habitats occurring within PHMA and 

GHMA. In general, most conservation measures would limit anthropomorphic disturbances that 

could have negative impacts on grassland habitats. The loss of fire in the sagebrush habitat 

would limit some habitat expansion for grassland associates.

Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Black-Tailed 

Prairie Dog, Swift Fox, Long-Billed Curlew, Burrowing Owl, Chestnut-Collared Longspur, 

McCown’s Longspur, Mountain Plover, and Grasshopper Sparrow on the TBNG.

117
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative D

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of grassland

habitat. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 9 percent

disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does require 

consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential changes in 

grassland habitat would be very similar but slightly less detrimental than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from GRSG leks. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the other 

alternatives except Alternative A. New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally 

be excluded (see Appendix 1); those allowed would be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit.

For grassland associated species, this is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation 

than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

Range

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Grazing management strategies 

would be developed cooperatively with permittees, lesees and other landowners on an allotmentby-allotment basis to improve GRSG habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in PHMA, GRSG 

habitat objectives and management considerations could be incorporated. Up to 15 percent of 

PHMA could be retired from grazing where permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes their 

grazing preference in their grazing allotment. Vegetative management and grazing infrastructure

is essentially the same as Alternative A. With an expected move toward lighter grazing to 

enhance GRSG habitat and up to 15 percent of the PHMA having grazing removed, this 

alternative would provide more, high quality habitat for grassland associated species than 

Alternative A, but not as much as in Alternatives B, C, and E.

Energy and Minerals

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and a three disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not 

exist in Alternative A. Fluid mineral leases would be closed on 6738 acres of GRSG habitat on 

federal surface and federal mineral leases, for example (Appendix 1). Energy development 

consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas, has been a predominant use of public lands on the TBNG. 

Within the above mentioned disturbance cap, there may still be some impacts as they relate to 

the: increased anthropogenic disturbance of habitat; off-road vehicle use; increased traffic on 

Forest Service and mineral development roads; new road construction; road traffic speed; utility 

corridor permits or easements; water development; mineral leasing and development; surface 

118
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

occupancy on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial campsites; and development or removal of 

mineral materials. The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush outside of priority core 

habitat could also lead to these same increased anthropogenic disturbances, only they could be 

greater since there would be no cap on the disturbance. Conservation measures would promote 

habitat more than Alternative A but less than Alternatives B, C, and E.

Fire and Fuels Management

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Treated areas would not be rested from 

grazing. Both prescribed and wild fire has provided benefits to this habitat type through the 

conversion of sagebrush to a grass dominant condition. This reduction has come about from a 

variety of activities including wildfire and prescribed. In several cases, these prescribed burns 

have been designed to specifically improve grassland habitats. Since these species prefer tall, 

ungrazed to lightly grazed grasslands both prescribed and wild fire have provided benefits to 

habitat condition. The only adverse effect would be the limitation of a 9 percent disturbance, 

which could prevent increased habitat growth in some areas.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in 

addition to impacts described above. Grassland habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLMadministered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. Activities occurring in the five resource 

areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these 

other lands. The 9 percent disturbance cap on Forest Service lands could cause a reduction in 

habitat improvement projects associated with sagebrush removal in some cases. This is expected 

to contribute to a slower expansion of the habitat, but overall grassland habitat is expected to 

remain stable or increase. 

However, cumulatively, there could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from 

recreation and travel, ROWs, energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and 

fuels management in sagebrush habitat. In this alternative habitat for grassland associated species 

is still expected to be maintained or improve slightly. These cumulative effects are discussed in 

greater detail in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. However, this alternative includes a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat, which only conserves about 42 percent of 

sagebrush habitat on the TNBG, and the limited conservation measures in other sagebrush 

habitat will have detrimental impacts on grassland associated species compared to Alternatives 

119
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

B, C, and E. Allowable activities could cause substantial changes in habitat quantity, quality, and 

fragmentation.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Proposed management would still have impacts on 

individuals of the mixed grass associated species. Therefore, this alternative “may adversely 

impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause 

a trend toward federal listing” for the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, Swift Fox, Long-Billed Curlew, 

Burrowing Owl, Chestnut-Collared Longspur, McCown’s Longspur, Mountain Plover, and 

Grasshopper Sparrow on the TBNG.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel

New level four and five roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied 

GRSG leks within GRSG PHMA and SFAs. No new road construction for any level of road 

would be allowed within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA. Road 

construction and re-construction would be completed only to the minimum construction needs. 

Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 within a 

six tenths (0.6) mile radius of the perimeter of occupied GRSG leks inside core habitat and 

connectivity habitat areas. In addition, noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek should not 

exceed 10 decibels above ambient noise. 

Recreation special uses would be allowed in priority and GHMA and SFAs only if they did not 

result in a loss of GRSG habitat or have a long-term (more than five years) negative impact on 

the GRSG or its habitat. In addition, T&C to protect and restore GRSG habitat will be included 

in all SUAs.

Conservation measures inside PHMA and SFAs would provide some benefits to grassland

associated species habitat by limiting disturbances associated with roads, road construction, and 

recreational activities. In some cases it may also increase some disturbances in that portion of the 

PHMA made up of grassland to avoiding disturbances in sagebrush. Conservation measures for 

GRSG habitat outside these areas could lead to increased anthropogenic disturbance of grassland

associated species habitat, increased traffic on Forest Service and mineral development roads, 

new road construction, and road traffic speed. 

Potential adverse effects on mixed grass associated species from these exceptions in specific 

areas could include habitat fragmentation due to road development, direct mortality from vehicle 

collision, and the disruption of breeding and the rearing of young. Conservations measures focus 

primarily on PHMA and SFAs (>275,000 acres) on the TBNG. Measures would be slightly more 

restrictive than Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C.

120
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Lands and Realty

GRSG habitat requirements would be used to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA. New projects within PHMA and SFAs would include the 

proposed distribution and transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed disturbance. 

GRSG PHMA and SFAs would be managed as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA 

permits (see Appendix 1).

Grassland associated species would benefit from conservation measures restricting 

anthropomorphic activities, but could see a loss of habitat if habitat were identified for disposal 

in favor of GRSG habitat. Measures in PHMA and SFAs would be more restrictive than 

Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C.

Range

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks and in other seasonal habitats. Most 

conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and associated range 

improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that contributes to rangeland 

health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These measures would also maintain 

or improve sagebrush habitat quality for sagebrush associated species. There could be areas of 

improved GRSG habitat for productive breeding, foraging, and cover for grassland associated 

species.

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands >200 acres. In addition, on TBNG, 

Management Areas 8.4 and 3.63 (Minerals Management and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction 

Habitat) that overlap with GHMA management areas or other areas in GHMA designated for 

short-grass species, livestock grazing will be managed to meet those Management Area 

objectives.

Grassland associated species could benefit from habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to 

grasslands for improved livestock forage. There could also be site specific overgrazing during 

drought years with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation 

to meet other vegetative objectives. Potential adverse effects on mixed grass associated species 

from these exceptions in specific areas could include habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure

development focused on avoiding GRSG impacts. 

The conservation measures for this alternative emphasize GRSG habitat and they could deemphasize grassland associated species habitat by increased sagebrush retention. The inclusion 

of the exception areas would allow this effect to be minimized outside of PHMA. This 

alternative reduces mixed grass habitats in GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative 

B provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA but not as much within GHMA.

Alternative C would apply to priority and GHMA, promoting sagebrush habitat quality for 

121
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

sagebrush associated species more than other alternatives but at the expense of grassland 

associated species in some instances.

Energy and Minerals

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, mineral operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. Where there are existing leases, stipulations for the 

protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and 

development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions for priority and GHMA

during breeding and winter concentration. All timing, distance, density, and disturbance 

restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable and locatable mineral activities as 

well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments, will be constructed to reduce the 

potential for West Nile virus.

Within PHMA management areas, a maximum of 5 percent disturbance in PHMA and SFAs 

(within >275,000 acres) would be allowed using the Density Disturbance Calculation Tool 

(DDTC). The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be considered and evaluated for 

measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an average of one location per 640 

acres. Habitat disturbing activities that fit within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed 

to cause the least impact possible to GRSG habitat.

Conservation measures inside PHMA and SFAs and often GHMA, would provide habitat 

benefits to grassland associated species habitat. For example, fluid mineral leases would be 

closed in 26,554 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 

1). In some cases, this limit may increase some disturbances in that portion of the PHMA made 

up of grassland by avoiding disturbances in sagebrush. The difference in conservation measures 

in sagebrush outside of PHMA could lead to: increased anthropogenic disturbance of grassland

associated species habitat; off-road vehicle use,; increased traffic on Forest Service and mineral 

development roads; new road construction; road traffic speed; utility corridor permits or 

easements; water development; mineral leasing and development; surface occupancy on mineral 

leased areas; noise; industrial campsites; and the development or removal of mineral materials

The conservation measures for this alternative maintain or protect sagebrush habitat in both 

priority and GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. For example, Alternative A has no 

disturbance limit and Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance limit compared to 5 percent for 

this alternative. Alternative D also allows three energy production locations per 640 acres and 

Alternative A has no limitation. Alternatives B and C are generally more restrictive or 

prohibitive to energy development than this alternative. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

Within PHMA and SFAs and GHMA, prescribed fire activities will be designed to move 

vegetative conditions described for GRSG. It will be avoided in areas of Wyoming big 

sagebrush, other xeric sagebrush species, or where cheatgrass or other fire-invasive species occur 

122
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

and/or within areas of less than 12 inches of annual precipitation unless needed to facilitate site 

preparation for habitat restoration. Fuels treatments will be designed to reduce the spread and 

intensity of wildfires. A maximum of 5 percent disturbance would be allowed within PHMA and 

SFAs using the DDTC. Prescribed fire in nesting and wintering habitats that would reduce 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15 percent would be avoided.

Fire can provide improved habitat conditions for grassland associated species by increasing 

grassland habitat and reducing shrub species. The reduction of fire and the 5 percent disturbance 

cap could slow the establishment of new or expanded grassland habitat.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Grassland habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLMadministered land adjacent to the Forest Service units. Activities occurring in the five resource 

areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these 

other lands especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional loss, degradation, 

or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, 

range management, and fire and fuels management in sagebrush habitat. These cumulative 

effects are discussed in greater detail in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this 

GRSG amendment.

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

The conservation measures for this alternative emphasize GRSG habitat and they could deemphasize grassland associated species habitat by increased sagebrush retention. The inclusion 

of the exception areas would allow this effect to be minimized outside of PHMA. Some habitat 

fragmentation due to road development, direct mortality from vehicle collision, and the 

disruption of breeding and the rearing of young could occur. The 5 percent disturbance cap 

could slow the establishment of new or expanded grassland habitat within PHMAs. Grassland

associated species would benefit from conservation measures restricting anthropomorphic 

activities, but could see a loss of habitat if their habitat were selected for development or 

identified for disposal in favor of protecting GRSG habitat.

This alternative reduces mixed grass habitats in GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. 

Alternative B provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA, but not as much within 

GHMA. Alternative C would apply to all GRSG habitats without exceptions, promoting 

sagebrush habitat quality for sagebrush associated species more than other alternatives, but at the 

expense of grassland associated species in some instances.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would reduce many impacts on mixed grass associated species. Proposed 

management would still have some impacts on individuals of the mixed grass associated species.

123
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Therefore, this alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss 

of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for the Black-Tailed

Prairie Dog, Swift Fox, Long-Billed Curlew, Burrowing Owl, Chestnut-Collared Longspur, 

McCown’s Longspur, Mountain Plover, and Grasshopper Sparrow on the TBNG.

D. Plants

The following eight R2 or R4 sensitive plant species are analyzed in greater detail for this BE: 

Barr’s milkvetch (Astragalus barii), meadow milkvetch (Astragalus diversifolius var. 

diversifolius), Payson’s milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii), Payson’s bladderpod (Lesquerella 

paysonii), Soft aster (Symphyotrichum molle), Dropleaf (slender leaved), Buckwheat (Eriogonum 

exifolium), Colorado tansyaster (Machaeranthera coloradensis var. coloradensis), and Large

flower triteleia (Triteleia grandiflora). 

These species were grouped for this analysis due to their similarity of using sagebrush habitats.

Though species specific effects may differ slightly, the programmatic nature and landscape scale 

effects will be analyzed generally and collectively for these species. As the nature of the project 

is to amend the Forest and Grassland Plans to include the regulatory mechanisms and 

conservation measures used to protect sagebrush habitats for GRSG, these measures would have 

similar effects on sagebrush associated plants. The adverse impacts on these plant species are 

expected to be minor to negligible.

Astragalus barrii (Barr’s milkvetch)

Distribution

This plant is a R2 Sensitive Species occurring on the TBNG. Astragalus barrii is a rare species 

endemic to the badlands of southwestern South Dakota, far northwestern Nebraska, and the 

Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Astragalus barrii grows on dry badlands and semi-barren slopes with low vegetation cover. It 

grows on soils derived from shale, sandstone, silts and limestone. It typically occurs on rocky 

prairie breaks, ridges, knolls, and slopes (Ladyman 2006). Vegetation in this environment tends 

to be adapted to high insolation, considerable run-off, and exposure to sediments and salinity 

from exposed and partially modified geological material.

There are insufficient data to accurately determine the long-term trends. Since Astragalus barrii 

was first recognized, several large populations that appeared to be stable have been located. In 

general, revisits to known occurrences seem to have found additional colonies rather than 

relocating the original colony.

Activities associated with natural resource development, particularly coal bed methane gas, are 

emerging as the primary potential threats to the habitat of Astragalus barrii in the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming and Montana (Ladyman 2006). Range-wide some populations have been 

124
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

impacted by resource extraction activities in the past, but the impacts appear to have been 

localized. Grazing and trampling by native and nonnative ungulates may have an impact on some 

of the smaller colonies, but do not appear to substantially threaten any of the larger known 

populations. Invasive weeds are likely a threat to long-term sustainability of some populations 

due to habitat degradation and competition.

Astragalus diversifolius var. diversifolius (Meadow milkvetch)

Distribution

This plant is a R4 Sensitive Species with a historical observation (1834) that was believed to 

occur on the BT. The historic location was thought to overlap current GRSG habitat on the BT.

However, Heidel (2009) indicates that this milkvetch does not occur on national forests in the 

Intermountain Region. It occurs in east-central Idaho, the southwestern edge of the Salt Lake 

Desert in Utah, southern Nevada, and south-central Wyoming. In Wyoming it is known from the 

Great Divide Basin (Sweetwater County) and the one historical collection is thought to be from 

the Green River Basin (Sweetwater or Sublette Counties).

Habitat Associations and Threats

This plant occurs in moist, often alkaline, meadows and swales in sagebrush valleys or closed 

drainage basins (4,400-6,620 feet). In Wyoming it grows in alkaline meadows at fringes of playa 

landscapes at 6,500-6,620 feet (Heidel 2009). These alkaline meadows do not occur on the BT.

There are estimated to be approximately 8,000 plants of Astragalus diversifolius in Wyoming 

covering an area about 75 ha. The density and continuity of the species varies greatly within and 

between occurrences. All three of the Wyoming occurrences have higher numbers than the 

largest known Idaho occurrence (Heidel 2009).

Potential threats to currently known populations are considered to be habitat loss from 

agriculture in adjacent states, mineral and energy developments, and noxious weed invasion.

Astragalus paysonii (Payson’s milkvetch)

Distribution

This plant is a R4 Sensitive Species that overlaps some GRSG habitat on the BT. The species is a 

regional endemic of the Clearwater Mountains of north-central Idaho; historically from the 

Palisades Reservoir area of east-central Idaho; and the Wyoming Salt River, Snake and Gros 

Ventre ranges of western Wyoming (Lincoln, Teton, and Sublette Counties) (Heidel 2008). The 

species is known from 37 occurrences in Wyoming, 30 of which have been discovered or 

observed since 1992.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Payson’s milkvetch occurs primarily in disturbed areas such as recovering burns, clear cuts, road 

cuts, and blow downs on sandy soils with low cover of forbs and grasses at elevation ranging 

125
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

from 5,850-9,600 feet (Heidel 2008). Average occurrences are extremely small and restricted in 

area often with fewer than 20 plants in 1/2 acre of habitat. Only five Wyoming occurrences are 

notably large containing over 100 plants. In an historical perspective, this species is probably in 

decline due to fire suppression in western national forests. Most populations are very small and 

probably are unable to persist over long periods of time without some form of disturbance. 

Payson’s milkvetch is threatened primarily by succession which makes habitats unsuitable for 

long-term persistence. This species requires periodic disturbances to create new habitat or keep 

competing late-seral species or weeds at bay. 

Lesquerella paysonii (Payson’s bladderpod)

Distribution

This plant is a R4 Sensitive Species that overlaps GRSG habitat on the BT. Payson’s bladderpod 

is a regional endemic of west central Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwestern Montana. In 

Wyoming this species is found in the Gros Ventre, Salt River, Snake River, Teton, Wind River, 

Wyoming ranges, northern Green River Basin, and Jackson Hole in Lincoln, Sublette, and Teton 

Counties (Heidel 2008a).

Habitat Associations and Threats

Payson’s bladderpod occurs primarily on windswept, gravelly, calcareous ridge crests, semiopen slopes, and rocky floodplains. Occurrence is often associated with Artemisia tridentata var. 

vaseyana grassland communities with total vegetative cover between 25-50 percent. Populations 

also occur on talus slopes, disturbed roadsides, dried stream channels, rocky clearings within 

conifer forests, and travertine outcrops at 5,500-10,600 feet (Heidel 2008a). Census populations 

range in size from 10-1,500 individuals in areas between 1-30 acres. Total population is 

conservatively estimated at 20,000 individuals (Fertig 1997). Impacts from recreation (hiking 

and off-road vehicles), ski development, grazing, and mining are potential threats in lower 

elevation populations. However, overall threats are low to most occurrences (Heidel 2008a).

Symphyotrichum molle (Soft aster)

Distribution

This plant is a R4 Sensitive Species that overlaps GRSG habitat on the BT. It is a Wyoming 

endemic restricted to the Bighorn Range (Big Horn, Johnson, Natrona, Sheridan, and Washakie

Counties) and Cliff Creek/Hoback Canyon area of Sublette County (Fertig 2000).

Habitat Associations and Threats

Soft aster is found in sagebrush grasslands and mountain meadows in calcareous soils at 6,400 to 

8,500 feet elevation. The identification of a Hoback Canyon occurrence has been questioned, but 

unresolved. As such, presence is currently acknowledged for the project area on the BT.

126
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

The species is known from 34 extant and two historical locations in Wyoming, 32 of which have 

been discovered or relocated since 1990. Many populations are abundant locally containing 

several thousand individual plants (Fertig 2000). Grazing and trampling have been identified as 

potential threats, although low levels of herbivory or disturbance do not appear to have a 

negative impact.

Eriogonum exifolium (Dropleaf {slender leaved} buckwheat)

Distribution

This plant is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps GRSG habitat on the MB. It is a regional 

endemic whose global distribution is limited to 26 occurrences in Carbon and Albany Counties, 

Wyoming and Jackson, Grand, and Larimer Counties, Colorado (Anderson 2006). Two of these 

occurrences are known from the MB.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Dropleaf buckwheat is a perennial herb that grows in sparsely vegetated habitats such as barren 

hills or sagebrush flats on mountain parks. The plant has been found at elevations ranging from 

7,500–9,000 feet in Colorado. It is restricted to scattered small areas of specific habitats.

Individual occurrences range from groups of 30 plants to more than one million (Anderson 

2006). According to Anderson (2006), there is evidence to suggest that Eriogonum exilifolium

numbers are trending downward as the result of human activities and habitat loss; however, it 

may be abundant where areas of suitable habitat are extensive since it is under-inventoried and it 

is possible that occurrences remain to be discovered.

Threats include “residential and commercial development, range improvements, off-road vehicle 

use, other recreational uses, grazing, energy development, reservoir creation, ROW management, 

coal mining, exotic species invasion, effects of small population size, disease, declining 

pollinators, fire, global climate change, and pollution” (Anderson 2006).

Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Colorado tansy aster)

Distribution

This plant is a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps some GRSG habitat on the MB. Colorado 

tansy aster is a regional endemic species with populations located in central, west-central, and 

southwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming. Of the 33 occurrences of Machaeranthera

coloradoensis, 21 occurrences are on lands managed by the Forest Service in Colorado and 

Wyoming. Two occurrences have been documented on the MB.

Habitat Associations and Threats

This species is found mainly from foothills to subalpine environments on sparsely-vegetated 

slopes, rocky outcrops, roadsides, or subalpine meadows (Beatty et al. 2004). Reported 

elevations range from 6,090 feet to 8,500 feet. It is found on sparsely-vegetated areas with other 

cushion-like plants in sagebrush communities.

127
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

No population trend is apparent. However, several forest botanists believe that extensive surveys 

would discover more populations and 15 new locations have been discovered since 1997 (Beatty 

et al. 2004).

Machaeranthera coloradoensis is vulnerable because of its restricted geographic range and small 

number of documented occurrences. Direct or indirect negative impacts on populations or 

habitats by human-related activities could occur from motorized and non-motorized recreation, 

trail or road construction and maintenance, reservoir expansion, housing development, changes 

to natural disturbance regimes, domestic livestock activities, invasive species introduction, or 

small-scale mining. Lower elevation populations and those populations closest to roads and trails 

are likely at the most risk.

Triteleia grandiflora (Largeflower Triteleia)

Distribution

This plant is a R2 Sensitive Species with habitat that might overlap GRSG habitat on the MB.

Distribution of this species centers around the Pacific Northwest with populations in Colorado 

(San Juan National Forest) and Wyoming (MB National Forest) representing the southern- and 

eastern-most extents (Ladyman 2007).

Habitat Associations and Threats

In Colorado the species is found in openings among Pinus ponderosa (ponderosa pine) and 

Quercus gambelii (Gambel oak) at approximately 7,800 feet. Judging from the number of 

historic occurrences, Triteleia grandiflora appears to have been a relatively common species 

within its range sometimes abundant locally, but in other areas it may have always existed in low 

numbers. However, several populations have been extirpated and extant populations appear to be 

declining (Ladyman 2007). Threats to long-term persistence include: habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation caused by human recreation, livestock grazing, resource development (timber 

and mineral), and invasive nonnative plant species throughout its range (Ladyman 2007).

Alternative A - No Action

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current roads system, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new roads and 

upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on recreation special 

uses. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater likelihood of 

loss or disturbance of habitat. These activities would continue on 235,076 acres of PHMA and 

676,618 acres of GHMA. There would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush 

habitat lost to road construction. Impacts include physical damage to individuals or habitat.

Growth, development, root storage, or seed set may be reduced or individual mortality might 

128
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

occur. There could be increased erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction, or spread of invasive 

weeds. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance,

but not the other impacts such as habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There would 

be 4186 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). Some plant habitat could 

be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic 

benefits in these areas; however, impacts on sensitive plants from such exchanges would be 

considered and mitigated per Forest Service policy. All Forest Service-administered lands would 

continue to be managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs 

would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in 

habitat loss. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds, physical 

damage or death to individuals, erosion, sedimentation, and soil compaction. Lesquerella 

paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance, but not the other 

impacts such as habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases. Though most projects would 

attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss of habitat. This alternative provides 

the least amount of habitat protection for sensitive plants (see Appendix 1).

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing. Livestock 

grazing is permitted on 3,270 acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on the BT and almost all 

GRSG habitat on the MB National Forest and TBNG. Potential effects on plant habitat could 

include site specific overgrazing; reduction in structure and diversity of residual vegetation from 

consumption; and degradation of rangeland habitat due to trampling. Growth, development, root 

storage, or seed set may be reduced or individual mortality might occur. Other impacts may 

include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds, physical damage or erosion, 

sedimentation, and soil compaction. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit 

from the disturbance, but not the other impacts such as habitat loss, spread of invasive weeds, or 

soil compaction. Forest and Grassland Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management 

usually provide sufficient cover and diversity for healthy plant habitat across the Forests and 

Grassland. Still, this alternative provides the lowest amount of habitat protection.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The 

majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing including expansion of new 

leases. This alternative could allow a large amount of habitat loss and degradation of sagebrush 

habitat. Fluid mineral leasing is closed in 3345 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and 

federal mineral leases, as an example (Appendix 1). There could be physical damage or death to 

individuals. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds, physical 

damage, or erosion, sedimentation, and soil compaction. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus 

129
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

paysonii could benefit from the disturbance but not the other impacts such as habitat loss, spread 

of invasive weeds, or soil compaction. This alternative provides the least amount of habitat 

protection for sensitive plants (see Appendix 1).

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Also, treatment is permitted 

in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. There would be no disturbance limit for acres of 

sagebrush moved into an early successional stage by wildfires and prescribed fires. This 

alternative could allow a large amount of habitat loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat.

There could be physical damage or death to individuals. Other impacts may include new 

infestations of noxious or invasive weeds, physical damage, erosion, or sedimentation.

Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the disturbance but not from 

other impacts such as weed increases. This alternative provides the least amount of habitat 

protection for sensitive plants.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. These plants occur on private, state, and BLMadministered land adjacent to the Forests and Grassland. Activities occurring in the five resource 

areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these 

other lands especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, soil compaction, or invasive weed spread from recreation and travel, ROWs

granted, energy and mineral development, fire and fuels treatments, and range management in 

sagebrush habitat off the Forests and Grassland. The combined impact is a trend toward: more 

loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat; more early succession grass-dominated habitat; more 

disturbances in sagebrush habitat; and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative plants.

Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 

for this GRSG amendment.

Summary of Alternative A

Existing levels of habitat alteration or loss and disturbance would continue or could increase.

Limitations would be provided only by Forest Plans’ guidance which generally allows 

substantial disturbance and habitat loss in sagebrush habitat. Grassland Plan guidance is more 

restrictive in GRSG habitat. The limited conservation in the five resource areas (Appendix 1) 

could allow substantial changes in habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of Alternative A measures limits a few impacts 

on plant species. Proposed management would have impacts on individuals of these plant 

species. Determinations are consistent for the TBNG, BT, and MB. 

130
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus barii on the TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Eriogonum exifolium, 

Machaeranthera coloradensis var. coloradensis, and Triteleia grandiflora on the MB.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” Astragalus diversifolius var. 

diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, and Symphyotrichum molle on the BT.

Alternative B 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 5

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 235,076 acres of PHMA. All travel would remain on 

designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA if there was a 

neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat degradation or loss than Alternative A

(see Appendix 1), retaining more sagebrush habitat and more undisturbed sagebrush habitat. Of 

course these benefits would occur only on PHMA, not all habitat for these plants. Lesquerella 

paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance, but not the other 

impacts such as habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some sagebrush habitat. There 

would be 106,023 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). These 

conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, 

D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize 

connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PHMA which also benefits these plant 

species. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 235,076 acres of PHMA across the Forest Service units in this alternative. Alternative 

B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG priority in favor of GRSG and this sagebrush habitat.

Many livestock improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas 

not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. The measures would benefit these 

131
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

sensitive plant species. The potential effects due to livestock grazing and range improvements 

would be similar to Alternative A except that Alternative B provides more restrictions that would 

priority protect habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for <2 percent of the land cover in the Forests 

and 39 percent of the Grassland, so changes would be variable and localized. There could be 

areas of improved habitat for plant health, growth, development, root storage, or seed set.

Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from ground disturbance, but not the 

other impacts such as habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile,

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Additionally, there would be a 3 percent disturbance 

limitation and a one disturbance/section limitation in PHMA. For example, fluid mineral leases 

would be closed on 348,750 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases 

(Appendix 1). This alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the future for GRSG 

and, consequently, for plant species. Energy and mineral development could still occur in the 

remaining sagebrush habitat (see Appendix 1). This alternative better conserves PHMA and,

therefore, habitat for sagebrush associated plant species than Alternatives A, D, and E and is 

equal to Alternative C in PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration and recovery would be emphasized. Prescribed burning in PHMA would be avoided 

in <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent disturbance limit.

These measures would promote the conservation of mature sagebrush habitat and reduce 

disturbance to plant habitat from fire in PHMA. Consequently, there would be less early stage 

sagebrush communities for some species. This alternative conserves more habitat than 

Alternatives A, D, and E, but conserves less than Alternative C. Astragalus paysonii might 

benefit less from the limitation on prescribed burning but would be benefitted by the reduction in 

habitat loss.

Cumulative Effects for Alternative B

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. In addition to the National Forest System lands

administered lands, these plants occur on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to 

the BT, MB National Forest and TBNG. Activities occurring in the above resource areas may 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, soil 

compaction, or invasive weed spread from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and 

mineral development, fire and fuels treatments, and range management in sagebrush habitat off 

the Forests and Grassland. However, anthropogenic disturbances >3 percent on all ownerships in 

PHMA would restrict more disturbance on federal lands. When combined with the expected 

impacts, this action’s impacts are not expected to lead toward a federal listing nor to cause 

132
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

concerns over population loss or species viability issues from the Forest Service units under 

review. Additional discussion of cumulative effects is contained in the FEIS chapter 4 and in 

Manier et al. (2013).

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in PHMA, which is <2 percent to 39

percent of the sagebrush habitat across the Forest Service units. There would be benefits to 

individuals in PHMA. None of the design criteria is specific to sensitive plant species. The 

implementation of the criteria would likely reduce, but not eliminate direct and indirect effects 

on sensitive plants growing in sagebrush. Generally, activities in GHMA and the remaining 

sagebrush habitat will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows.

These activities affect most sagebrush habitat on the Forest units. Overall impacts will be 

reduced compared to Alternative A.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in Alternative B in 

PHMA would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated plant species. Proposed 

management allowances would have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated plant 

species. Determinations are consistent for the TBNG, BT, and MB National Forest. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus barii on the TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Eriogonum exifolium, 

Machaeranthera coloradensis var. coloradensis, and Triteleia grandiflora on the MB National 

Forest.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” Astragalus diversifolius var. 

diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, and Symphyotrichum molle on the BT

National Forest.

Alternative C 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would generally be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, 

these measures would benefit more than 600,000 acres of habitat than most other alternatives.

New road construction is prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks and avoided in 

PHMA and GHMA. Existing road management would be designed to maintain or improve both 

133
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

PHMA and GHMA. Camping and other non-motorized recreation would be seasonally 

prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These measures allow the least habitat loss 

and disturbance among alternatives. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance would be 

reduced on much of the sagebrush habitat. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could 

benefit from ground disturbance, but not from other impacts such as habitat loss or weed 

increases. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for sagebrush habitat. GRSG priority and 

GHMA would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects (see Appendix 1).

Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of all designated habitat, limiting 

the possibilities for future loss of habitat from development. This alternative would promote the 

greatest distribution of intact sagebrush habitat for associated plant species.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 235,076 acres of PHMA across the Forest Service units in this alternative. The 

prohibition of livestock grazing in PHMA would promote the most cover and production of 

herbaceous plants within sagebrush among Alternatives. Improved plant health, growth, 

development, root storage, and seed set responses would also occur for sensitive plants. Still, 

PHMA includes a very small portion of the Forests, <2 percent, so conservation measures would 

benefit a limited number of plants here. Since the Grassland is 39 percent PHMA, there would be 

much less disturbance to sensitive plants across this unit. Some benefits would be reduced for 

Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii since these plants benefit from ground disturbance 

that can be caused by livestock grazing. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to sagebrush associated plants than other 

alternatives. Many measures would be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, 

conservation measures would benefit more than 600,000 additional acres of sagebrush habitat on 

the Forests and Grassland than most other alternatives. For example, fluid mineral leases would 

be closed on 1,439,673 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases 

(Appendix 1). No exceptions, waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will 

be considered within priority (234,621 acres) and GHMA. Priority and GHMA would be closed 

to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations would 

be accepted for parcels within priority or GHMA.

Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in priority and GHMA to obtain exploratory 

information for areas outside of and adjacent to these habitats and would be subject to seasonal 

restrictions that preclude activities in GRSG breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats 

during their season of use by GRSG. All PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral 

leasing. PHMA would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits.

Overall, habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced. There would be reduced physical 

134
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

damage or death to individuals, reduced infestations of noxious or invasive weeds, or erosion, 

sedimentation, and soil compaction. Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit 

from disturbance, but not the other impacts such as habitat loss, spread of invasive weeds, or soil 

compaction.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15 percent. Prescribed 

burning in priority and GHMA would be avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. Prescribed fire 

in sagebrush would be very limited in priority and GHMA, promoting the conservation of mature 

sagebrush habitat for most sensitive plant species, >800,000 acres across the units. There would 

be less physical damage or death to individuals. On the other hand, there would be a reduced 

opportunity to create new disturbed habitat for Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii.

Cumulative Effects for Five5 Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in 

addition to impacts described above for Alternative C. In addition to the Forest Service lands, 

these plants occur on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT National 

Forest and MB National Forest and TB National Grassland. Activities occurring in the above 

resource areas may also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation 

measures on these other lands especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat 

loss, degradation, soil compaction, or invasive weed spread from recreation and travel, ROWs

granted, energy and mineral development, fire and fuels treatments, and range management in 

sagebrush habitat off the Forests and Grassland. However, this alternative substantially limits 

anthropogenic disturbances in priority and GHMA on federal lands, benefitting sagebrush 

associated species. When combined with the expected impacts, this action’s impacts are not 

expected to lead toward a federal listing nor to cause concerns over population loss or species 

viability issues from the Forest Service units under review. Additional discussion of cumulative 

effects is contained in the FEIS chapter 4 and in Manier et al. (2013).

Summary of Alternative C

This alternative limits habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation in priority and general habitat,

more than 850,000 acres of sagebrush habitat across the units. There could be substantial 

conservation for individual sensitive plants and clusters of plants. However, none of the design 

criteria is specific to sensitive plant species. The implementation of the criteria would likely 

reduce, but not eliminate direct and indirect effects on sensitive plants growing in sagebrush.

Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat will occur as they do currently or could 

expand as existing direction allows. Overall impacts on sensitive plants will be reduced 

compared to all other alternatives.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in Alternative C 

135
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated plant species. Proposed management 

allowances would still have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated plant species.

Determinations are consistent for the TBNG, BT National Forest, and MB National Forest. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus barii on the TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Eriogonum exifolium, 

Machaeranthera coloradensis var. coloradensis, and Triteleia grandiflora on the MB National 

Forest.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” Astragalus diversifolius var. 

diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, and Symphyotrichum molle on the BT

National Forest.

Alternative D

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more habitat loss, fragmentation, and habitat degradation of sagebrush 

than most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D 

has a 9 percent disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it 

does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential 

changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would have the same impact 

on sagebrush associated plants as alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA will be allowed > 0.25 miles from the three

known leks on the BT, numerous leks on TBNG, and any new leks. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except Alternative A. In particular, this 

disturbance would affect 39 percent of the TBNG. Impacts on the Forests would be much 

smaller.

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. There would be 106,092 acres of ROW exclusion 

areas in sagebrush habitat (Appendix 1). This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation for sagebrush associated species than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less 

disturbance than Alternative A. These same uses would be allowed in GHMA. Lesquerella 

136
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance, but not from other 

impacts such as habitat loss, compaction, or weed increases.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. Many conservation measures for

Alternative D apply to priority core habitat. A few slight differences include this alternative

recommends considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in response to 

drought in priority core habitat. Since priority core habitat is <2 percent of sagebrush habitat on 

the Forests, these conservation measures would have a very small benefit to sensitive plants.

Priority core habitat is 39 percent of the Grassland, so conservation measures would have some 

benefit to some individuals and clusters of sensitive plants on the Grassland.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Fluid mineral leases would 

be closed on 6,740 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases, as an 

example (Appendix 1). However, there is a 9 percent disturbance cap and a three

disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not exist in Alternative A. The lack 

of conservation measures in sagebrush outside of PHMA would allow increased disturbance, loss 

of habitat, or degradation of habitat. Priority core habitat is 39 percent of the Grassland so 

conservation measures would have some benefit to some individuals and clusters of sensitive 

plants on the Grassland.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Sagebrush treatment would follow 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Protocols for treating sagebrush to benefit GRSG; a tool 

to determine whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” contributing toward the 9 

percent threshold. Treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. Treated 

areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the 

expansion of noxious weeds to compete against native sensitive plant species. These limited 

conservation measures in PHMA and the lack of measures in the remainder of sagebrush habitat 

would have detrimental impacts on sagebrush associated plant species including habitat loss or 

degradation, physical damage, death, reduced root storage, or seed production. Lesquerella 

paysonii and Astragalus paysonii could benefit from the ground disturbance but not from other 

impacts such as habitat loss or weed increases.

Cumulative Effects for Alternative D

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Most of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in 

addition to impacts described above for Alternative D. In addition to the National Forest System

137
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

lands, these plants occur on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT and 

MB and TBNG. Activities occurring in the above resource areas may also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, soil 

compaction, or invasive weeds spread from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and 

mineral development, fire and fuels treatments, and range management in sagebrush habitat off 

the Forests and Grassland. However, when combined with the expected impacts, this action’s

impacts are not expected to cumulatively push any of the sensitive plant species over a threshold 

toward a federal listing nor to cause concerns over population loss or species viability issues 

from the Forest Service units under review. Additional discussion of cumulative effects is 

contained in the FEIS chapter 4 and in Manier et al. (2013).

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. However, this alternative includes a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat will allow some additional habitat loss and 

degradation. Limited conservation in the remaining sagebrush habitat could allow substantial 

changes in habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the units. None of the 

design criteria is specific to sensitive plant species. The implementation of the criteria would 

likely reduce, but not eliminate direct and indirect effects on sensitive plants growing in 

sagebrush. Still, this alternative prevents some detrimental impacts compared to Alternative A.

Currently, some of the potential habitat changes have occurred, particularly on the Grassland.

Habitat is generally intact in most areas. Full use of conservation measures in Alternative D 

would reduce some impacts on sagebrush associated plant species. Proposed management 

allowances would still have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated plant species in 

most sagebrush habitat. Determinations are consistent for the TBNG, the BT, and MB. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus barii on the TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Eriogonum exifolium, 

Machaeranthera coloradensis var. coloradensis, and Triteleia grandiflora on the MB.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” Astragalus diversifolius var. 

diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, and Symphyotrichum molle on the BT.

138
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative) 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs (>380,000 acres). Similarly, secondary road 

construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs and 

within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades would be prohibited in PHMA and 

SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would be limited to the minimum standard.

There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA and SFAs. Disruptive 

activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 on or within 0.6 

miles of occupied GRSG leks.

Some recreation special uses would be allowed as long as habitat loss and disturbance do not 

occur in PHMA and SFAs. The restriction on road construction or upgrades near leks in priority 

and GHMA would reduce direct disturbance and habitat loss. Disturbances to priority and 

general management areas would be fewer due to the standards and guidelines in place, which 

would lessen impacts on sensitive plant species in these areas. These measures would be slightly 

more restrictive, and therefore, provide more protection for sensitive plants in these areas than 

those described for Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C. The 

reduced disturbance would not promote Lesquerella paysonii and Astragalus paysonii, but these 

plants would benefit from reduced loss of habitat.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Generally, the lands and realty standards and guidelines lessen the anthropogenic impacts on

PHMA management areas and in some cases priority and GHMA by limiting new ROWs and 

special use permits for activities in these areas. These include activities such as high-voltage 

power lines, pipelines, temporary access roads, MET towers and land ownership adjustments. 

Some small amount of sagebrush habitat could be lost, degraded or disturbed due to the 5 percent

allowance for sagebrush habitat lost in PHMA or SFAs. Conservation measures would allow 

some power lines or upgrades in designated transmission corridors, power lines >0.6 miles from 

occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs, and some special uses. However, there would be 5,362 acres 

of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat (Appendix 1). Small sagebrush habitat changes 

could also occur because sagebrush habitat could be exchanged to other ownership in limited 

situations. Lower anthropogenic disturbances will potentially result in fewer impacts on sensitive 

plants, though at this large-scale planning level it is uncertain to what extent. From a relative 

perspective, the Proposed Plan Amendment will have fewer impacts on sensitive plants than 

Alternatives A and D and greater impacts on these plant species than Alternative C. This 

alternative would retain >360,000 acres of sagebrush habitat with the 5 percent disturbance limit 

compared to 228,024 acres of PHMA retained in Alternative B with a 3 percent disturbance 

limit.

139
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

The objectives, desired conditions, standards and guidelines with respect to livestock grazing, 

GRSG habitat and timing, distance, density and disturbance incorporate measures to provide 

adequate habitat quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks and other GRSG seasonal 

habitats. Most conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and 

associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that 

improves rangeland health and sagebrush habitats. 

There would be some exceptions to meeting conservation measures for areas with <200 acres of 

GRSG habitat in isolated parcels of Forest Service lands, in Management Areas 8.4 and 3.63 

(Minerals Management and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat) on TBNG, and where 

>90 percent of an allotment on TBNG occurs within nesting or brood rearing habitat. 

These combined actions would not adversely impact the sensitive plant species under review. 

Rather these species would generally benefit from these measures through improved rangeland 

health conditions. The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in 

PHMA and SFAs (>380,000 acres), and GHMA (>500,000 acres) more than Alternatives A and 

D. Alternative B provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA (235,076 acres), none 

in SFAs, and not as much within GHMA (676,618 acres). Alternative C would apply to 

>850,000 acres of combined PHMA and most often GHMA.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

With respect to the standards and guidelines in the minerals, energy development, infrastructure, 

timing, distance, density and disturbance sections, anthropogenic disturbance in all GRSG 

habitat management areas will be reduced from the existing condition, or no action alternative. 

For example, fluid mineral leases would be closed on 3,343 acres of GRSG habitat on federal 

surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, stipulations for 

the protection of GRSG or their habitats would be added to (COAs when approving exploration 

and development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions for priority and GHMA

and SFAs during breeding and nesting season and in winter concentration areas. All timing, 

distance, density, and disturbance restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and 

locatable mineral activities as well. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit in PHMA

and SFAs. The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be considered and evaluated for 

measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an average of one location per 640 

acres. Habitat disturbing activities that fit within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed 

to cause the least possible impact on GRSG habitat.

These standards and guidelines inside GRSG habitat management areas are not expected to have 

any adverse impacts on the sensitive plant species under review. These actions are expected to 

benefit these species by limiting direct disturbance from energy development/extraction and 

subsequent weed infestations where ground has been mechanically disturbed. Standard GRSGTDDD-ST-010, which allows for exceptions, modifications and waivers, may inadvertently 

140
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

cause an impact on a sensitive plant at the site-specific level. However, the probability of an 

impact would be less likely than under existing management direction or the no action alternative 

(Alternative A). Additionally, it is expect that if exceptions are granted the site would be 

surveyed for sensitive plants and they would be avoided or mitigated. Further, it is expect that 

these standards and guidelines in the Proposed Plan Amendment will benefit sensitive plants 

more than Alternatives A and D, but not as much as Alternatives B and C. For example, 

Alternative A has no disturbance limit and Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance limit 

compared to 5 percent for the Proposed Plan Amendment. Alternative D also allows three energy 

production locations per 640 acres and Alternative A has no limitation on locations per section.

Alternatives B and C are generally more restrictive or prohibitive to energy development than 

this alternative.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs, and most often, also in GHMA. The standards and guidelines 

with respect to fire management are designed to minimize fire’s negative impact on sagebrush, 

minimize the direct loss of sagebrush from fire, minimize firefighting (suppression) impacts on 

sagebrush cover and GRSG, and increase effectiveness of suppression and pre-suppression 

activities in GRSG habitat management areas. Additionally, standards and guidelines that direct 

fuels management, (e.g. GRSG-GRSGH-ST-001, GRSG-GRSGH-GL-003, and GRSG-GRSGHGL-005) are designed to minimize disturbance in GRSG habitat management areas and also 

increase the effectiveness of pre-suppression activities. There is a 5 percent disturbance limit for 

sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs. In addition, vegetation treatment in PHMA and 

SFAs in nesting and wintering habitat in northeast Wyoming that would reduce sagebrush 

canopy to <15 percent would be restricted.

These standards and guidelines are not expected to adversely impact sensitive plant species. 

Indirect benefits to sensitive plants may come from controlling or avoiding post-fire weed 

invasions in sagebrush habitat as there are fewer acres burned in these areas, especially in low 

elevation, low precipitation Wyoming sagebrush habitats. Two species, Lesquerella paysonii and 

Astragalus paysonii, may respond differently as these species require natural ground disturbance, 

however, the extent of the limitations is expected to be negligible for these species. 

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to sensitive plants in sagebrush habitat than 

Alternatives A and D considering, for example, a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent

disturbance limit for these Alternatives, respectively. The Proposed Plan Amendment is 

generally similar to Alternatives B and C, but is less restrictive in a few conservation measures.

In the Proposed Plan Amendment, sagebrush treatment would be limited by Table 1 Seasonal 

Habitat Desired Conditions, the 5 percent disturbance cap, and standards and guidelines for Fire 

Management in order to maintain sagebrush in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA and SFAs.

141
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Cumulative Effects for Sensitive plant species

The adverse impacts on the sensitive plant species under review from the GRSG LRMP 

Amendment desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines described above are 

negligible. In addition to the National Forest lands, these plants occur on private, state, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT, MB, and TB. Activities occurring in the above 

resource areas may also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation 

measures on these other lands, especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional 

habitat loss, degradation, soil compaction, or invasive weed spread from recreation and travel, 

ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, fire and fuels treatments, and range 

management in sagebrush habitat off the Forests and Grassland. However, when combined with 

the expected impacts of this action, the combination is not expected to cumulatively move any of 

the sensitive plant species over a threshold toward a federal listing nor create concerns over the 

populations or viability of the species. Additional cumulative effects discussion is contained in 

the FEIS chapter 4, as well as in Manier et al. (2013).

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent and one

disturbance per 640 acres. Disturbances up to the 5 percent level may cause some impacts on

sensitive plant species; however, this is much lower than would likely occur with Alternatives A 

and D. This alternative also limits disturbing activities in PHMA and SFAs and often, GHMA. In 

total, there are >850,000 acres of combined PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA. For the total acres of 

PHMA management areas, SFAs, and GHMA management areas, there would be a lower 

likelihood of impact on sensitive plant species and less loss or degradation of habitat due to the 

protection measure in the standards and guidelines. However, none of the guidance is specific to 

sensitive plant species. The implementation of the direction would likely reduce but not 

eliminate direct and indirect effects on sensitive plants growing in these habitat management 

areas. Generally, other activities in remaining areas will continue as they currently do, or may 

expand as existing direction allows. Overall, effects from the Proposed Plan Amendment would 

be less impacting to sagebrush associated sensitive plant species than Alternatives A and D, but 

there may be more impacts than Alternatives B and C.

Proposed management would still have impacts on individuals of the sagebrush associated plant 

species in most sagebrush habitat. Determinations are consistent for the TBNG, BT, and MB. 

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Astragalus barii on the TBNG.

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” for Eriogonum exifolium, 

Machaeranthera coloradensis var. coloradensis, and Triteleia grandiflora on the MB.

142
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

This alternative “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability 

in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” Astragalus diversifolius var. 

diversifolius, Astragalus paysonii, Lesquerella paysonii, and Symphyotrichum molle on the BT.

VIII. CONTACTS

The following specialists provided their expertise in the creation of this document:

• Tim Byer

TBNG wildlife biologist

Douglas District wildlife biologist, MB-Routt National Forests

tbyer@fs.fed.us 

• Steve Loose

Brush Creek-Hayden District wildlife biologist

MB-Routt National Forests 

sloose@fs.fed.us 

• Katharine Haynes

North Zone botanist

MB-Routt National Forests

katharinemhaynes@fs.fed.us

• Chris Colt

Wildlife Biologist

Forest Service GRSG ID Team Biologist

ccolt@fs.fed.us 

IX. LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, D.E., S. DeStefano, M.I. Goldstein, K. Titus, C. Crocker-Bedford, J.J. Keane, R.G. 

Anthony, and R.N. Rosenfield. 2003. The status of northern goshawks in the western 

United States. Wildlife Society Technical Review 04-1. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland.

Anderson, D.G. 2006. Eriogonum exilifolium Reveal (dropleaf buckwheat): a technical 

conservation assessment. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/eriogonumexilifolium.pdf.

Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings, and R.C. Rawlinson. 2004. Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Gray) 

Osterhout (Colorado tansyaster): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/machaerantheracoloradoensis.pdf.

143
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Beck, J. L., Connelly, J. W., & Wambolt, C. L. (2012). Consequences of treating Wyoming big 

sagebrush to enhance wildlife habitats. Journal of Rangeland Management, 65(5), 444-

455.Beck, J. L., & Mitchell, D. L. (2000). Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse 

habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 993-1002.Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and 

T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet 

website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf.

Blickley, J. L., Blackwood, D., & Patricelli, G. L. (2012). Experimental Evidence for the Effects 

of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise on Abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at Leks. 

Conservation Biology, 26(3), 461-471. Bock et al. 1993

Braun, C.E. 2006. A Blueprint for Sage-grouse Conservation and Recovery. Gouse, Inc. 

Tuscon, AZ.Braun, C.E., M.E. Baker, R.I. Eng, J.W. Gashwiler, and M.H. Schroeder. 

1976. Conservation Committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities 

on the associated avifauna. Wislon Bulletin 88:165-

Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance of boreal toads from the 

mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7(2):355-362.

Cerovski, A., Gorges, M., Byer, T., Duffy, K., & Felley, D. (Eds.). (2001). Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. Wyoming Partners in Flight. Lander, WY: Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. 

Cerovski, A. O., Grenier, M., Oakleaf, B., Van Fleet, L., & Patla, S. (2004). Atlas of Birds, 

Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Lander, WY: Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department Nongame Program. 

Collins, C.P. and T.D. Reynolds (2005, September 2). Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis): a 

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ferruginoushawk.pdf 

Corn, P.S. 1994. What we know and don’t know about amphibian declines in the west. Pages 59-

67 in W.W. Covington and L.F. DeBano, technical coordinators. Sustainable ecological 

systems: implementing and ecological approach to land management. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical 

Report RM-247.

Davies, K. W., Boyd, C. S., Beck, J. L., Bates, J. D., Svejcar, T. J., & Gregg, M. A. (2011). 

Saving the Sagebrush Sea: An Ecosystem Conservation Plan for Big Sagebrush Plant 

Communities. Biological Conservation, 144, 2573-2584. 

Dinsmore, S.J. 2003 Mountain Plover assessment. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainplover.pdf

144
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Fertig, W. 1997. Status report on Lesquerella paysonii in northwest Wyoming. Unpublished 

report prepared for Bridger-Teton National Forest by the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Laramie WY.

Fertig, W. 2000. State Species Abstract-ASTER MOLLIS (SOFT ASTER), Family: Asteraceae. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

Garton, E.O., J. W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M.A. Schroeder. 2011. 

Greater sage-grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. Chap. 15 in 

Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats, 

S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, eds. Pp293-382.

Garton, E.O, A.G. Wells, J.A. Baumgardt and J.W. Connelly. 2015. Greater Sage-Grouse 

Population Dynamics and Probability of Persistence. Report to Pew Charitable Trust (18 

March 2015). 90 pp. (unpublished report).

Gilbert, M. M. and Chalfoun, A. D. 2011. Energy development affects populations of sagebrush 

songbirds in Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75: 816–824.

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25). Townsend’s Big-eared Bat ( ): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf

Heidel, B. 2008. State Species Abstract-ASTRAGALUS PAYSONII (PAYSON'S 

MILKVETCH), Family: Fabaceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, 

Wyoming.

Heidel, B. 2008a. State Species Abstract-LESQUERELLA PAYSONII (PAYSON'S 

BLADDERPOD), Family: Brassicaceae. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, 

Wyoming.

Heidel, B. 2009. Status of Meadow milkvetch (Astragalus diversifolius) in south-central 

Wyoming. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins and Rock Springs 

Field Offices. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming.

Hester S.G., Grenier M.B. 2005. A conservation plan for bats in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, Nongame Program, Lander, Wyoming.

Hoffman, R.W. and A.E. Thomas. 2007. Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus 

phasianellus columbianus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiansharptailedgrouse.pdf.

Holloran, M. J. (2005). Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response 

to Natural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation. Laramie, 

WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology and Physiology. 

145
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Holmes, J.A. and M.J. Johnson. 2005a. Sage sparrow assessment. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/sagesparrow.pdf.

Holmes, J.A. and M.J. Johnson. 2005b. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella brewerii): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet 

website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf.

Keinath, D.A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2006. Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius): a 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wyomingpocketgopher.pdf.

Keinath, D.A. (2004, October 29). Fringed Myotis: a technical conservation assessment. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf.

Keinath, D. and M. McGee. 2005. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation 

assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, 

Colorado.

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf.

Knick and Connelly (eds.) 2011 Greater Sage-grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape 

Species and Its Habitat. Studies in Avain Biology

Ladyman, J.A.R. 2006. Astragalus barrii Barneby (Barr’s milkvetch): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/astragalusbarrii.pdf.

Ladyman, J.A.R. 2007. Triteleia grandiflora Lindley (largeflower triteleia): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet 

website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/triteleiagrandiflora.pdf.

Loeffler, C. (ed.). 2001. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery of 

the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), Boreal 

Toad Recovery Team. 

Luce, R.J. and D. Keinath. 2007. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/spottedbat.pdf.

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. 

Mayne,, S.J. Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary 

of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation 

146
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2013. Fort Collins, Colorado.

McDonald, D., N.M. Korfanta, and S.J. Lantz. 2004. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/burrowingowl.pdf.

Moreno, F (editor). 2012. Final Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation for the 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments. USDA 

Forest Service. 246pp.

National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures. Unpublished report. December 2011.

Paige, C. and S.A.Ritter. 1999. Birds in a Sagebrush Sea, Managing Sagebrush Habitats for 

Bird Communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group. Boise, Idaho

Pauli, J.N., R.M. Stephens, and S.H. Anderson. 2006. White-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys 

leucurus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/whitetailedprairiedog.pdf.

Pruitt, L. 2000. Loggerhead shrike status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort 

Snelling, Minnesota.

Sedgwick, J.A. 2004a. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/chestnutcollaredlongspur.pdf.

Sedgwick, J.A. 2004b.Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mccownslongspur.pdf.

Sedgwick, J.A. 2006. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/longbilledcurlew.pdf.

Slater 2004. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/grasshoppersparrow.pdf

Slater, G.L. and C. Rock. 2005. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northern harrier.pdf.

Squires, J. R., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest site preference of northern goshawks in 

southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(1):170-177.

Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Internet website:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/swiftfox.pdf [12/5/06]

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, 

C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive 

147
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished 

Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Taylor, R.L., D.E. Naugle, and L. S. Mills. 2012. Viability Analysis for Conservation of Sagegrouse Populations: Buffalo Field Office. Univ of Montana. 

USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 4. Jackson, WY.

. 2009. Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat 

With Respect to livestock Grazing Use On the Bridger-Teton National Forest. BridgerTeton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming. 

. 2009a. Management Indicator Species for the Bridger-Teton National Forest. BridgerTeton National Forest. Jackson, Wyoming.

. 2003. Medicine Bow National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. US

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 2. Laramie, Wyoming.

. 2001. Thunder Basin National Grassland Land Resource Management Plan, 2001 

Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, 

Wyoming.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 75(55): 13910-14014.

. 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) conservation objectives: final 

report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 92 pp. + appendices.

Wiggins, D.A. 2005. Loggerhead Shrike: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf.

Wiggins, D.A. 2005a.Short-eared owl: a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/shortearedowl.pdf.

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse 

Conservation Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

. 2013. Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group Reports 2007-2008. Internet website: 

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/wildlife-1000817.aspx.

148
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

. 2011. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Treating Sagebrush to be Consistent with 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5; Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

. 2014. Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan Addendum. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

149
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

This page intentionally left blank.

150
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES 

REPORT

for the

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Effort to 

Amend the Bridger-Teton and Medicine Bow 

National Forest Plans and the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland Management Plan

May 13, 2015

Prepared by:

Tim Byer, Wildlife Biologist

tbyer@fs.fed.us

Steve Loose, Wildlife Biologist

sloose@fs.fed.us

Chris Colt, Wildlife Biologist

ccolt@fs.fed.us

151
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

I. MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES: INTRODUCTION

The FSM defines MIS as "...plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected 

for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to 

assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other 

species with similar habitat needs which they may represent" (Forest Service 1991).

The NFMA directs national forests to identify MIS. MIS are chosen as a representative of certain 

habitat conditions important to a variety of other species. MIS are generally presumed to be

sensitive to habitat changes. By monitoring and assessing populations of MIS, managers can 

determine if management actions are affecting other species’ populations. According to the BT

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1990), MB National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 2003), and the TB National 

Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 2001), MIS for these 

management units include 20 terrestrial, eight aquatic wildlife species, and three plants.

The purpose of this MIS evaluation is to identify the likely effects of management decisions 

associated with the GRSG Planning Decision, specifically for BT, and MB National Forest, and

TB National Grassland on population trends for respective Management Indicator Species for 

each of these Planning Units.

MIS were reviewed to determine which are likely to be present or have habitat that overlaps with 

GRSG PHMA, SFAs, or GHMA. Table 2 identifies species likely to be affected by 

implementation of one or more of the amendment Alternatives.

The Analysis of the Management Situation for this GRSG amendment originally evaluated a 

number of species for consideration in the analysis process. Subsequent review of the 

Alternatives indicates that several of these species originally thought to be affected will 

experience no effects on their primary habitat or populations. No alternative is expected to 

impact any identified limiting factors for these species or their life requirements. Based on these 

factors, the following MIS will not be analyzed in greater detail:

• Peregrine falcon and

• Boreal chorus frog

For the project history, purpose and need, description of the alternatives and analysis area, please 

review the BE above or reference the FEIS chapter 2. 

152
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 2. Bridger-Teton and Medicine Bow National Forests and Thunder Basin National Grassland Management Indicator Species that may be 

influenced by an action alternative and will be further analyzed in this document.

Species (Forest 

Service Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present in 

Analysis Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

BIRDS

Bald eagle (BT)

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

(Formerly) 

Threatened or 

endangered species 

recovery

Y N

No habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation of 

the alternatives will cause no changes to population of this species 

or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail.

Northern goshawk

(MB) Accipiter 

gentiles

Late seral 

lodgepole and 

aspen

N N

No habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation of 

the alternatives will cause no changes to population of this species 

or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail.

American 

peregrine falcon 

(BT) 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

(Formerly) 

Threatened or 

endangered species 

recovery

Incidental Minor

Very little habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. However, 

implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes to 

population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this species will 

not be evaluated in more detail.

Greater SageGrouse (TBNG) 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus

Sagebrush quality

Y Y

GRSG is the species for which amendment is occurring. The 

species will be evaluated in more detail.

Plains sharp-tailed 

grouse (TBNG)

Tympanuchus 

phasianellus

High structure 

grasslands Y Y

There are records of the species within PHMA and GHMA. The 

alternatives propose some changes within species habitat to which 

sharp-tailed grouse population could respond. The species will be 

evaluated in more detail.

Whooping crane

(BT)

Grus americana

Threatened or 

endangered species 

recovery

N N

No habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation of 

the alternatives will cause no changes to population of this species 

or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail.

153
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Species (Forest 

Service Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present in 

Analysis Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Brewer’s sparrow 

(BT)

Spizella breweri

Sagebrush 

condition

Y Y

There are records of the species within PHMA and GHMA. The 

alternatives propose some changes within species habitat to which 

Brewer’s sparrow population could respond. The species will be 

evaluated in more detail.

Golden-crowned 

kinglet (MB)

Regulus satrapa

Fragmentation 

within a forest 

stand

N N

No habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation of 

the alternatives will cause no changes to population of this species 

or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail

Three-toed 

woodpecker (MB)

Picoides 

tridactylus

Snags, old forest, 

recent forest burns

N N

No habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation of 

the alternatives will cause no changes to population of this species 

or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail

Lincoln’s sparrow

(MB) Melospiza 

lincolnii

Riparian zone, 

herbivory in 

willow community N N

No habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation of 

the alternatives will cause no changes to population of this species 

or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail

Wilson’s warbler

(MB) Wilsonia 

pusilla

Riparian zone, 

herbivory in 

willow community N N

No habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation of 

the alternatives will cause no changes to population of this species 

or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail

MAMMALS

Bighorn sheep 

(BT)

Ovis canadensis 

canadensis

Harvested species, 

mountain meadow 

condition

N N

This species prefers high elevation alpine habitats with steep escape 

terrain adjacent to open foraging areas during summer months; 

usually winter in mountain meadows at lower elevations within 

home ranges. No habitat association with GRSG (Moreno 2012). 

Implementation of the alternatives will cause no changes to 

population of this species or its habitat. Therefore, this species will 

not be evaluated in more detail. 

154
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Species (Forest 

Service Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present in 

Analysis Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Grizzly bear (BT)

Ursus arctos 

horribilus

Threatened or 

endangered species 

recovery

Y Addressed in BA

Also a threatened species. See analysis in BA.

Elk (BT)

Cervus elaphus 

nelsoni

Harvested species

Y Y

There are records of the species within PHMA and GHMA. The 

alternatives propose some changes within species habitat to which 

elk population could respond. The species will be evaluated in more 

detail.

Mule deer (BT)

Odocoileus 

hemionus

Harvested species

Y Y

There are records of the species within PHMA and GHMA. The 

alternatives propose some changes within species habitat to which 

mule deer population could respond. The species will be evaluated 

in more detail.

Moose (BT)

Alces alces shirasi

Harvested species

Y Y

There are records of the species within PHMA and GHMA. The 

alternatives propose some changes within species habitat to which 

moose population could respond. The species will be evaluated in 

more detail.

Pronghorn 

antelope (BT)

Antilocarpa 

americana

Harvested species

Y Y

There are records of the species within PHMA and GHMA. The 

alternatives propose some changes within species habitat to which 

pronghorn population could respond. The species will be evaluated 

in more detail.

Black-tailed 

prairie dog

(TBNG)

Cynomys 

ludovicianus

Low structure 

grasslands

Y Y

There are records of the species within PHMA and GHMA. The 

alternatives propose some changes within species habitat to which 

prairie dog population could respond. The species will be evaluated 

in more detail.

American marten 

(BT/MB)

Martes americana 

origines

Old growth forest/.

N N

No habitat within mapped PH or GH habitat. Implementation of the 

alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this species or 

its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail.

155
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Species (Forest 

Service Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present in 

Analysis Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Snowshoe hare

(MB) Lepus 

americana

Conifer habitats 

with dense 

understory

N N

No habitat within mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation of 

the alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this species 

or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail.

AMPHIBIANS

Boreal toad (BT)

Bufo boreas 

boreas

Wetland condition

Y Y

The species is likely to occur within PHMA or GHMA on the BT. 

The alternatives propose some changes within species habitat to 

which Boreal toad population could respond. The species will be 

evaluated in more detail.

Boreal chorus 

frog (BT)

Pseudacris 

triseriata

Wetland condition

Y Minor

Minor habitat overlap with PHMA or GHMA on the BT.

Alternatives will not affect habitat for this MIS, there will be no 

change to population of Chorus frog. Therefore, this species will 

not be evaluated in more detail.

FISH

Bonneville 

cutthroat trout 

(BT)

Oncorhynchus 

clarki Utah

Riparian condition

Y N

No habitat overlap with mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation 

of the alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this 

species or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated 

in more detail.

Colorado River 

cutthroat (BT)

Oncorhynchus 

clarki pleuriticus

Riparian condition

Y N

No habitat overlap with mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation 

of the alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this 

species or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated 

in more detail.

Rainbow trout 

(BT/MB)

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss

Riparian 

condition/water 

quality Y N

No habitat overlap with mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation 

of the alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this 

species or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated 

in more detail.

156
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Species (Forest 

Service Unit)

Management 

Issue

Known or 

Suspected to be 

Present in 

Analysis Area?

Habitat present in 

Analysis Area?

Summary of anticipated effects from implementation

of an action alternative to MIS

Yellowstone/Snak

e River finespotted cutthroat 

(R4)

Oncorhynchus 

clarki spp.

Riparian condition

Y N

No habitat overlap with mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation 

of the alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this 

species or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated 

in more detail.

Common trout 

(MB)

Salmo trutta 

(brown)

Salvelinus 

fontinalis (brook)

Water quality Y N

No habitat overlap with mapped PHMA or GHMA. Implementation 

of the alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this 

species or its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated 

in more detail.

PLANTS

Shultz’s 

milkvetch (BT) 

Astragalus 

shultziorum

Sensitive plant 

representative N N

No habitat within mapped PH or GHMA. Implementation of the 

alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this species or 

its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail.

Boreal draba (BT)

Draba borealis

Sensitive plant 

representative N N

No habitat within mapped PH or GHMA. Implementation of the 

alternatives will cause no changes to populations of this species or 

its habitat. Therefore, this species will not be evaluated in more 

detail.

Aspen (BT)

Populus 

tremuloides

Ecological 

indicator of Aspen 

Condition Y Y

Aspen occurs within PHMA and GHMA. The alternatives propose 

some changes within or adjacent to aspen which could impact the 

distribution and abundance of aspen. Aspen will be evaluated in 

more detail.

157
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

II. MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES – EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

A MIS is defined as a “plant or animal species or habitat components selected in a planning 

process used to monitor the effects of planned management activities on populations of wildlife 

and fish, including those that are socially or economically important” (TB National Grassland 

Land and Resource Management Plan, USDA 2001). The GRSG is selected as a management 

indicator species for sagebrush habitats that have tall, dense, and diverse herbaceous 

understories. These areas typically have a history of lighter livestock grazing intensities. Some of 

the species that also use this habitat include sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, pronghorn, and 

sage.

Distribution

The GRSG is an MIS species on the TB National Grasslands. GRSG historically inhabited 13 

western states and three Canadian provinces, but they have declined across their range and now 

occupy approximately 56 percent of their historic range. They are currently found in only 11 

states and two Canadian provinces (USFWS 2013).They are found in association with shrub 

steppe and grassland habitats specifically having sagebrush as a component. Within Wyoming, 

GRSG habitats within Forest Service System lands support the GRSG population which include 

MB, BT National Forest, and TBNG. The WGFD has divided the State of Wyoming into six

local sage-grouse working group areas for management and monitoring purposes. The TBNG

falls within the Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Local Working Group Area which 

encompasses 23,024 square miles (14,732,639 acres) in the northeast corner of Wyoming. While 

the TBNG comprises only 4 percent of the Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area, it 

provides over 25 percent of the GRSG habitat on federal public lands within this area. On TB 

where it is an MIS, there are approximately 553,864 acres of GRSG habitat.

Habitat Associations and Threats

The large GRSG requires a variety of sagebrush structural stages to meet seasonal habitat 

requirements. Sagebrush is essential for GRSG during all seasons of the year. This relationship is 

perhaps tightest in the late fall, winter, and early spring when GRSG are dependent on sagebrush 

for both food and cover. During the spring and summer, succulent forbs and insects become 

important additional food sources. GRSG require an extensive mosaic dominated by sagebrush 

of varying densities and heights along with an associated diverse native plant community 

dominated by high levels of native grasses and forbs (Wyoming Game and Fish Department

2003).

Current threats to GRSG in Wyoming include conversion and fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitats through infrastructure development which include energy development, wildfire, 

invasive species encroachment, noise, and the emergence of West Nile Virus in the Powder 

158
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

River Basin. Below is the complete list identified by the USFWS in 2005 as threats to GRSG 

range-wide. For the purposes of the following table, Wyoming is considered a part of the eastern 

population.

The Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group felt oil, gas, and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) 

development, weather, vegetation management, invasive plants, parasites and diseases were the 

most important influences on the northeast Wyoming GRSG population.

Population Status and Trend

The WGFD monitors GRSG populations throughout the State including TBNG. They currently 

use the males/lek statistic to track population changes. This will indicate population fluctuations 

which is generally accepted as reflective of GRSG population’s dynamics, but it will not give a 

population estimate. The State and regional patterns are of importance in relation to the TBNG 

for two reasons. First, the Grasslands are a part of this data set. Second, the “males per lek” trend 

for TBNG follows a similar pattern to that of the Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group 

Area. Figure 1 shows the average number of males/lek for lek counts and all lek monitoring 

combined from 1967 to 2013 for the Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area. Using this 

information, the regional trend suggests about a 10 year cycle of periodic highs and lows. 

However, a concern is that generally each subsequent peak in the population is usually lower 

than the previous peak. Additionally, each periodic low in the population is generally lower than 

159
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

the previous population low. The long-term trend suggests a steadily declining GRSG

population.

Figure 1. Northeast Wyoming Local Working Group Area Average Number of Males/lek for Lek Counts and 

All Leks (1967-2013)

Source: Wyoming Game and Fish Department Greater Sage-Grouse Job Completion June 1, 2012- May 31, 2013

Figure 2 below illustrates the mean male attendance per lek at the State, Northeast Wyoming 

Local Working Group Area, and TBNG. Of the six working groups, Northeast Wyoming has the 

lowest average male lek attendance in the State, averaging nine males per active lek in 2013 

compared to the Statewide average of 17 males per active lek (Figure 2). Male lek attendance for 

the other working group areas ranged from 9.5 to 35 males per active lek. In 2013, the average 

males per lek on TBNG were 3.4.

160
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Figure 2. Mean Males/Lek for Wyoming, Northeast Wyoming, and TBNG (1996-2013)

The most recent peak minimum estimated population of GRSG on the TBNG was in 2007 at 

2,762 birds. The population has steadily declined since that time. The current 2013 population 

estimate is 368 birds which is a loss of 2,394 birds or an 87 percent reduction over the last six

years. The current population estimate is the lowest it has been in 16 years (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Minimum Greater Sage-Grouse Population Estimates for TBNG and the 15-Year Average

TBNG is divided into six subunits called Geographic Areas for management purposes, and each 

Geographic Area has GRSG as a MIS. Currently on TBNG, GRSG lek attendance is stable or 

slightly declining in two geographic areas, steeply declining in three geographic areas, and no 

longer has active leks in one geographic area.

1

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Sage-Grouse Males/Lek

TBNG

NE WY

STATE

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Minimum Sage Grouse Population 

Estimate

Min. Pop. Est.

16-year mean

Min. Pop. Trend

161
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

There would be no changes to the current TBNG system roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new roads and 

upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There is a current Travel Management Plan in 

place that addresses all non-special use travel on TBNG. Restrictions on special uses may apply, 

but off-road permits are still issued. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use 

equate to a greater likelihood of habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance to GRSG.

Motorized access to most of TBNG is present on authorized roads, and it usually means higher 

concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in habitat. In addition, with 

increased road use comes increased noise which has been identified as a specific stressor on 

GRSG (Holloran 2005). These disturbances can cause impacts on reproduction and survival 

(Blickley and Patricelli 2012). In this alternative noise associated with traffic would not be 

moderated in GRSG habitat.

Lands and Realty

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands. As a R2 Sensitive Species, 

GRSG habitat acquisition may be emphasized, however, some GRSG habitat could be traded to 

other ownership where the parcels are isolated, lands that would reduce boundary conflicts with 

other ownerships, or are otherwise in the public interest. All Forest Service lands would continue 

to be managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would 

continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat 

loss, fragmentation, or degradation. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or 

invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate 

or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat. (See Appendix 1 at the end of 

this document for specific acres of other land use restriction by Alternative.)

Range

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on TBNG.

Range improvements are designed to not have a direct negative effect on GRSG. Potential 

adverse effects on GRSG habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure

development, habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage, 

and site specific overgrazing during drought years with a potential reduction in cover, structure, 

and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include 

higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material 

causing a lack of hiding cover.

162
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Energy and Minerals

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas has been a predominant use of public 

lands on the TBNG. Given that the TBNG may, in its entirety, be described as occupied GRSG

habitat, energy development will continue to be an issue relevant to the conservation of GRSG.

Energy development on TBNG is also of national importance. The TBNG produces significant 

quantities of coal. There are four coal mines on the TBNG either in production or some phase of 

planning or construction. The four mines have a collective footprint of over 120,000 acres within 

the planning area of which approximately 44,500 acres is on Forest Service lands. These lands 

produced 22.2 percent of the entire nation’s coal in 1997 and they have continued to increase 

production. In addition, there are significant oil and gas exploration and development occurring 

and planned on TBNG. The majority of all GRSG habitats are open to leasing including 

expansion of existing leases with no cap on surface disturbing activities.

This energy development is a significant threat to GRSG as noted by the USFWS in the 2010 

finding (75 FR 13910-14014): Energy development is a significant risk to the GRSG in the 

eastern portion of its range (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and northeastern Utah – MZs I, II, 

VII and the northeastern part of MZ III), with the primary concern being the direct effects of 

energy development on the long-term viability of GRSG by eliminating habitat, leks, and whole 

populations and fragmenting some of the last remaining large expanses of habitat necessary for 

the species’ persistence. Energy development has also been identified as a major GRSG stressor 

in the Powder River Basin of Northeast Wyoming (Taylor et al. 2012).

The above mentioned energy development impacts as they relate to TBNG are a result of:

increased anthropogenic disturbance of GRSG habitat; off-road vehicle use; increased traffic on 

Forest Service and mineral development roads; new road construction; road traffic speed; utility 

corridor permits or easements; water development; mineral leasing and development; surface 

occupancy on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial campsites; and development or removal of 

mineral materials. (See Appendix 1 at the end of this document for specific acres of other land 

use restriction by Alternative.)

Fire and Fuels Management

In the Powder River Basin sagebrush patch size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres 

to an average of less than 300 acres (from 1966 to 2006), a 63 percent reduction (WGFD 2014).

This reduction has come about from a variety of activities including wildfire and prescribed 

burning. 

There were 205 wildfires on the TBNG surface from 2001-2011 averaging19 fires per year. 

(This does not include all wildland fires occurring on private and State lands during this time.)

The average size of a fire on TBNG during this time was 173.5 acres with a total of 35,562 acres 

burned. The largest single fire was 5,670 acres and five of the 11 years had more than 2,500 

acres burned each year. The dominant fuel types on TBNG are GRSG habitat (sagebrush and 

mixed-grass prairie) with lightening being the primary cause of wildfire (61 percent), fires 

163
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

caused by the railroad being the next most frequent cause (20 percent), remaining wildfires 

caused by a variety of other sources. 

Impacts from wildfires include removal or loss of large tracts of sagebrush habitat resulting in a 

direst loss of nests as well as a loss of nesting habitat, hiding cover, and winter range. Wildfire 

can also increase nonnative or exotic grasses or weeds causing additional impacts. For example, 

as cheatgrass invades habitat types it can out-compete many native grasses. With the increase in 

cheatgrass, come potential increases in wildfire. Fire within a cheatgrass invaded vegetation type 

becomes cyclic because fire removes the vegetation, cheatgrass re-grows to denser conditions, 

and it then creates a fine fuel accumulation ready to burn again at a much reduced fire return 

interval (Davies et al. 2011). 

In this alternative the use of prescribed fire generally is designed to maintain or improve habitat 

for desired plants and animals. However, prescribed burning is, by design, used to reduce the 

structure and seral condition when used in sagebrush, and this treatment tool is permitted in 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. These treatment impacts could result in removal or 

loss of up to 25 percent of the sagebrush within a stand and a burn area of up to 80 acres in size. 

This type of treatment could result in a localized loss or reduction in nesting, wintering, or hiding 

cover habitat while at the same time potentially increasing brood rearing habitat.

Most of the published literature concludes that fire has a negative effect on GRSG (Braun 2006; 

Knick and Connelly 2011; Beck et al 2012, USFWS 2013). A possible shortcoming of this 

research is the lack of studies involving the use of prescribed fire as a tool to thin Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush stands. Most literature evaluates intensive burning with a result near total removal of 

sagebrush within the burn area. The use of fire to reduce the density of Wyoming Big Sagebrush 

within a stand is still unclear. Prescribed fire can be a useful tool to remove conifer 

encroachment into GRSG habitat, but mechanical treatment was recommended in order to 

provide the most rapid recovery of the sagebrush community (Davies et al 2011).

Cumulative Effects

Effects on GRSG Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

In the Powder River Basin Sagebrush patch size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres 

to an average of less than 300 acres (from 1966 to 2006), a 63 percent reduction (WGFD 2014).

This reduction has come about from a variety of activities. On TBNG wildfires alone burned 

over 35,500 acres in 11 years with over 2,500 acres being burned annually five of the 11 years. 

Energy development, wildfire, road development, and increased noise have also all worked 

together to fragment and reduce suitable, effective GRSG habitat on the TBNG. These impacts 

and downward trend have occurred over the last 11 years under the operations of the current 

LRMP signed in 2002. With all of this considered, the Grassland-wide habitat could be expected 

to continue to decrease in effectiveness and size in this alternative. 

164
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on GRSG Population Trends TBNG-wide

GRSG populations have been steadily declining on the TBNG since 2007 with cyclic trends 

declining since 1998. Many of the GRSG leks also had less than 10 males in attendance per lek 

recorded for 2012. With the above discussion about habitat in mind, it could be expected that the 

Grassland-wide GRSG population would continue to decrease. This trend combined with the 

potential for West Nile in Northeast Wyoming (Taylor et al. 2011), is likely to lead to additional 

reductions in the distribution of GRSG within geographic areas and across the entire National 

Grassland. 

GRSG have been selected to indicate the effects of management activities on other species 

relying on the sagebrush ecosystem for all or a part of their life cycle. Therefore, in this 

alternative it is expected that similar declines in other sagebrush species and their habitats will 

occur. As the No Action Alternative, this alternative provides the least GRSG and sagebrush 

associated species habitat conservation.

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

In priority GRSG habitats, new road construction would be limited to areas with less than 3

percent habitat disturbance, and allow only the minimum necessary road standard and no 

upgrading of current roads. Existing roads not designated in a Travel Management Plan would be 

reclaimed. All travel would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be 

permitted in PPH if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. Road associated noise 

would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient levels which are lower in this alternative

(20-24 decibels) than Alternative A. All GRSG PPH and Important Bird Areas could be 

designated as SIAs. There would be less disruption of habitat, breeding, and a reduction of road 

associated mortality. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A 

retaining more suitable habitat.

Lands and Realty

PPH would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH (GHMA) would be managed as an 

avoidance area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation 

and acquisition of GRSG PPH (Core). These conservation measures would be more protective 

than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C.

This represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of 

GRSG PPH.

Range

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH (Core). Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. Fencing would be developed to reflect GRSG

165
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

needs in all GRSG habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the potential effects due to livestock grazing, 

vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be the same as Alternative A. Potential 

adverse effects on GRSG habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure

development; habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock 

forage; and site specific overgrazing during drought years with a potential reduction in cover, 

structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related 

impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a reduction of residual 

herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

Energy and Minerals

PPH (Core) would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials, and fluid 

mineral leases. Existing leases would have a four mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. 

COAs would be attached to existing leases during analysis and approval of exploration and 

development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts on GRSG through a project design. 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for GRSG would 

not be considered within GRSG PHMA. Outside of PPH (Core), mineral development would be 

the same as Alternative A. This alternative better conserves PPH (Core) GRSG habitat than 

Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to Alternative C.

Fire and Fuels Management 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH (Core) and fuels treatments would 

emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection would 

be emphasized. In GRSG PPH (Core) areas within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, fire is 

not used to treat sagebrush, unless as a last resort for fuel breaks and must be within a 3 percent

disturbance limit. This would promote the conservation of habitat and reduce disturbance to 

habitat associated with fire in PPH. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. This 

alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E, but conserves less than 

Alternative C.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on GRSG Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Within PPH (Core) the 3 percent disturbance limitation would limit anthropogenic impacts on

GRSG structural habitat conditions. With the increased emphasis on fire suppression, reduced 

energy development, noise restrictions, and livestock grazing modifications within PPH (Core) 

overall GRSG habitat usability should remain stable with a potential for increasing in areas 

exceeding the 3 percent disturbance limitation. Additional protections and directions for PGH 

(GHMA) will further provide habitat protections in this alternative. This alternative conserves 

more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E, but conserves less than Alternative C.

166
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on GRSG Population Trends TBNG-wide

Based on the above habitat discussion and protections, the GRSG population would have a better 

chance of developing a stable or upward trend. Many of the documented stressors have been 

reduced in PGH (GHMA) and in the case of PPH (Core) they may have been removed. This 

alternative would encourage better habitat conditions which would be conducive to increased 

male attendance at more leks across most geographic areas. While the potential for West Nile has 

not been removed, the potential for a larger population distributed across the landscape would 

provide a higher potential for more birds to survive an outbreak. The expected increase in 

population trend would also provide the opportunity for GRSG to re-populate geographic areas 

where they are absent or decreasing in Alternative A.

It is expected that this alternative will conserve more habitat for GRSG and sagebrush associated 

species habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E, but conserves less than Alternative C. 

Alternative C Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to GRSG and their habitat than other 

alternatives. In this alternative conservation measures are generally applied to both PPH (Core 

Habitat) and PGH (GHMA). GRSG PHMA and GHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion 

areas for new ROW or SUA permits. New road construction would be prohibited within four

miles of active GRSG leks, and it would be avoided in PPH (Core) and PGH (GHMA. Existing 

road management would be designed to maintain or improve both PPH (Core) and PGH 

(GHMA). Road associated noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient levels 

(20-24 decibels). Camping and other non-motorized recreation would be seasonally prohibited 

within four miles of active GRSG leks. There would be less disruption of habitat, breeding, and a 

reduction of road associated mortality. These measures allow the least habitat loss and 

disturbance of all of the Alternatives retaining more suitable habitat.

Lands and Realty

Alternative C would have the most protective measures GRSG. No GRSG habitat in PPH (Core) 

would be exchanged away. The Forest Service will strive to acquire important private lands in 

areas identified as GRSG Special Areas. Alternative C would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG habitat. This alternative would promote the greatest distribution and highest 

density of suitable GRSG habitat.

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within GRSG PPH. All new structural range 

developments and location of supplements would be avoided in both PPH and PGH unless they

can be shown to benefit GRSG. Grazing and trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and 

winter habitats would be avoided during periods of the year when these habitats are utilized by 

GRSG. Post-fire (both prescribed and wildfire) monitoring is required in all GRSG habitat to re167
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

establish grazing. Within PPH and PGH, livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas 

until woody and herbaceous plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives.

Positive and negative effects can be caused by livestock grazing (Beck and Mitchell 2000). The 

prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would retain the most herbaceous cover for nest 

concealment, and success; reduced predation; and increased chick survival (BER, Manier et al 

2013). Structural development control would reduce mortalities associated with fence collisions;

disease such as West Nile when it is associated with stock water development; and habitat 

fragmentation associated with water pipelines. Livestock grazing can also be beneficial in the 

establishment and maintenance of GRSG leks (Beck and Mitchell .2000) and it can stimulate 

forbs and increase their availability (BER, Manier et al 2013). By monitoring and rest from 

grazing, post-burned habitat is more likely to return to quality GRSG habitat.

Energy and Minerals

No exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will be 

considered within PPH and PGH. Both GRSG PPH and PGH areas would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations/expressions of 

interest would be accepted for parcels within PPH or PGH. Oil and gas leasing would not be 

allowed in PPH. Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in GRSG PPH and PGH to 

obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to PPH and PGH GRSG habitat 

and it would be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in breeding, nesting, brood 

rearing, and winter habitats during their season of use by GRSG. Where existing leases exist in 

all GRSG habitats, stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to 

COAs when approving exploration and development activities. No construction of evaporation 

or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater would be allowed. All PPH would 

be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. GRSG PPH areas would be closed to mineral 

material exploration, sales, and free use permits.

Conservation measure would be applied to more GRSG habitat, in many cases both PPH and 

PGH. Habitat effectiveness would be improved and fragmentation minimized. Since nearly all of 

TBNG is in either PPH or PGH, many of these restrictions would be applied grassland-wide. 

This alternative would be the most beneficial to GRSG and their habitat as it relates to energy 

development.

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all GRSG habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis 

on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all GRSG habitats, sagebrush 

reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Also, sagebrush 

canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15 percent within any GRSG habitat 

and vegetation treatments in both habitats would be designed to create landscape patterns which 

most benefit GRSG. For all GRSG habitat, fire would not be used to treat sagebrush in 

precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel break. Post-fuels 

168
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

management projects will be designed to ensure the long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan must include 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing enclosures, and include 

long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before grazing 

returns. Grazing then should not return to the burn area until woody and herbaceous plants 

achieve GRSG habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in known GRSG winter 

range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the 

winter range and will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels reduction project (roadsides or 

other areas) in all GRSG habitats would utilize mowing of grass. In PPH (Core) habitat areas, 

fire suppression to conserve the GRSG habitat would be prioritized immediately after firefighter 

and public safety.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in all GRSG habitat and suppression would be 

emphasized in PPH (Core). This would promote the conservation of habitat and reduce 

disturbance associated with fire. In addition, habitat restoration would be a priority. These 

measures would help improve overall GRSG habitat. This alternative conserves more sagebrush 

habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other alternatives. This could result in a localized 

increase in nesting, wintering, or hiding cover habitat while at the same time potentially allowing 

sagebrush encroachment into brood rearing habitat. The loss of fire as a tool could also restrict 

the removal of conifer encroachments into some sagebrush habitats.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on GRSG Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative provides habitat protections for both PPH and PGH GRSG habitats. This 

represents the entire GRSG habitat on TBNG and the majority of the National Grassland, 

excluding only the coal mine areas and ponderosa pine habitat type. This would result in very 

limited anthropogenic impacts on GRSG structural habitat conditions. With the increased 

emphasis on fire suppression, reduced energy development, noise restrictions, and livestock 

grazing limitations, overall GRSG habitat usability should remain stable with a high potential for 

an improving trend. However, there are negative impacts to this alternative with the complete 

exclusion of grazing and the loss of fire to enhance brood rearing habitat and conifer removal. 

These tools, if used properly, can assist in the maintenance and improvement of some key 

habitats. Overall, this alternative is the most conservative and it provides more suitable habitat 

than Alternatives A, B, D, and E.

Effects on GRSG Population Trends TBNG-wide

Based on the above habitat discussion and protections, the GRSG population would have a good 

chance of developing a stable or upward trend. Many of the documented stressors have been 

reduced or removed in much of the GRSG habitat across the National Grassland. This alternative 

would encourage better habitat conditions which would be conducive to increased male 

attendance at more leks across most geographic areas. While the potential for West Nile has not 

169
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

been removed, the potential for a larger population distributed across the landscape would 

provide a higher potential for more birds to survive an outbreak. The expected increase in 

population trend would also provide the opportunity for GRSG to re-populate geographic areas 

where they are absent or decreasing in Alternative A.

This alternative is the most conservative, and provides more suitable habitat for GRSG and 

sagebrush associated species than Alternatives A, B, D, and E.

Alternative D 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of Sagebrush 

than most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D 

has a 9 percent disturbance in PPH and it does require consideration of GRSG needs for 

recreation special uses in PPH (Core). The potential changes in Sagebrush habitat not covered by 

conservation measures would be very similar to but slightly less detrimental to GRSG than 

Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from GRSG. This is closer than the disturbance allowed in the other alternatives 

except Alternative A.

New ROWs and SUAs in PPH would generally be excluded; those allowed would be subject to 

the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation 

than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A. These same 

uses would be allowed in PGH.

Range

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Grazing management strategies 

would be developed cooperatively with permittees, leases, and other landowners on an allotmentby-allotment basis to improve GRSG habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in PPH GRSG 

habitat, objectives and management considerations could be incorporated. Up to 15 percent of 

PPH (Core) could be retired from grazing where permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes their 

grazing preference in their grazing allotment. Vegetative management and grazing infrastructure

is essentially the same as Alternative A. Potential adverse effects on GRSG habitat could include 

habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure development; habitat conversion of sagebrush stands 

to grasslands for improved livestock forage; and site specific overgrazing during drought years 

with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other 

170
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a 

reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

Energy and Minerals

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap that does not exist in Alternative A. The lack of conservation measures in 

sagebrush outside of PPH could lead to: increased anthropogenic disturbance of GRSG habitat;

off-road vehicle use; increased traffic on Forest Service and mineral development roads; new 

road construction; road traffic speed; utility corridor permits or easements; water development;

mineral leasing and development; surface occupancy on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial 

campsites; and the development or removal of mineral materials.

Fire and Fuels Management

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in PPH. This treatment would follow WFGD “Protocols for 

Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Greater Sage-grouse” (WGFD 2011) to determining whether 

proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute toward the 9 percent 

threshold. Treated areas would not be rested from grazing. This allowance alone will promote the 

expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, 

nesting, and winter range. These limited conservation measures on PPH and the lack of measures 

in the remainder of GRSG habitat would have detrimental impacts on GRSG. This type of 

management could result in a localized loss or reduction in nesting, wintering, or hiding cover 

habitat while at the same time potentially increasing brood rearing habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on GRSG Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. As displayed in 

Alternative A, there is a downward trend in habitat suitability and availability. The few 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to PPH (Core) habitat, and with 

this only representing 39 percent of the GRSG habitat within TBNG, they are not expected to be 

sufficient to create a noticeable change in GRSG habitat across the planning unit (TBNG). With 

implementation of this alternative, energy development, wildfire, road development, and 

increased noise would likely work together to continue to fragment and reduce suitable, effective 

GRSG habitat on the TBNG. 

With all of this considered, the Grassland-wide habitat could be expected to continue to decrease 

in effectiveness and size in this alternative.

Effects on GRSG Population Trends TBNG-wide

Since this alternative uses the Alternative A management direction, it is reasonable that the 

population trend associated with the Alternative A management would continue. GRSG 

populations have been steadily declining on the TBNG since 2007 with cyclic trends declining 

171
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

since 1998. Many of the GRSG leks also had less than 10 males in attendance per lek recorded 

for 2012. With the above discussion about habitat in mind, it could be expected that the 

grassland-wide GRSG population would continue to decrease. This trend, combine with the 

potential for West Nile in Northeast Wyoming (Taylor et al. 2011), is likely to lead to additional 

reductions in the distribution of GRSG within geographic areas, and across the entire National 

Grassland. 

It is expected that this alternative will conserve more habitat for GRSG and Sagebrush associated 

species habitat than Alternative A, but conserves less than Alternatives B, C, and E.

Proposed Plan Amendment

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

New primary and secondary roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied GRSG leks within GRSG PHMA. Other new roads would avoid areas within 0.6 miles 

of the perimeter of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA. Road construction and re-construction 

would be completed only to the minimum construction needs. Disruptive activities are restricted 

from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 on or within a 0.6 mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied GRSG leks inside core habitat and connectivity habitat areas. In addition, 

noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek, should not exceed 10 decibels above ambient 

noise. Some recreation special uses would be allowed in PHMA.

Conservations measures primarily apply to PHMA only. Measures in PHMA would be slightly 

more restrictive than Alternatives A and D but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C .The 

restriction on road construction or upgrades in PHMA would limit disturbance and habitat loss 

within PHMA, but it would allow existing conditions to continue in the remaining GRSG habitat.

Lands and Realty

GRSG habitat requirements would be used to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within PHMA habitats. New projects within GRSG PHMA would include the proposed 

distribution and transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed disturbance. GRSG 

PHMA would be managed as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA permits.

Most conservation actions are taken in both PHMA and PGH habitats. Some short-term (less 

than five years) impacts could occur. In addition, some small exceptions may be granted that 

could impact habitat, but could be demonstrated to not cause declines in GRSG populations. This 

could allow some habitat to be lost, degraded, or disturbed. Conservation measures would allow 

ROW and SUA permits as well as some limited power lines, some lease changes, and activities 

within 0.6 miles of a lek in PGH. Habitat changes could also occur because PHMA can be 

exchanged to other ownership. Overall, impacts on Sagebrush habitat and Sagebrush associated 

172
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

species would be reduced compared to Alternatives A and D but would be greater than impacts 

on Sagebrush habitat and associated species in Alternatives B and C.

Range

Within GRSG core habitat, as appropriate, site specific GRSG habitat objectives and 

management considerations would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals. Livestock 

grazing and associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a way 

that contributes to rangeland health and maintains and/or improves GRSG and its habitat.

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating measures to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of an occupied lek in most areas. Exceptions would include 

areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an allotment or on isolated parcels of 200 acres 

of Forest Service lands. In addition, on TBNG, Management Areas 8.4 and 3.63 (Minerals 

Management and Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat) that occur with PGH habitat and 

other areas in GHMA designated for short-grass species, they would also be excluded. These 

conservation measures improve habitat in both PHMA and GHMA habitat more than 

Alternatives A and D. Alternative B provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA,

but not as much within the GHMA habitat. Alternative C would apply to all GRSG habitat 

without exceptions which may not allow enough flexibility to maintain all of the needed habitat 

components. 

Potential adverse effects on GRSG habitat (primarily in GHMA habitat) could include habitat 

fragmentation due to infrastructure development; habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to 

grasslands for improved livestock forage; and site specific overgrazing during drought years with 

a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other 

vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality due to a 

reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

Energy and Minerals

A maximum of 5 percent disturbance would be allowed within PHMA using the DDTC. A 

minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate would be applied within 

GRSG PHMA. The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be considered and evaluated 

for measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an average of one location per 

640 acres. Where existing leases exist in all GRSG habitat, stipulations for the protection of 

GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and development 

activities. All non-energy leasable and salable mineral activities would be considered in PHMA. 

The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush outside of PHMA could lead to increased 

anthropogenic disturbance of GRSG habitat; off-road vehicle use; increased traffic on Forest 

Service and mineral development roads; new road construction; road traffic speed; utility 

corridor permits or easements; water development; mineral leasing and development;, surface 

occupancy on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial campsites; and the development or removal 

173
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

of mineral materials. Conservation measures would have impacts similar to but more restrictive 

than Alternatives A and D.

Fire and Fuels Management 

A maximum of 5 percent disturbance would be allowed within PHMA using the DDTC. Within 

GRSG PHMA habitat in northeast Wyoming, vegetation treatments in nesting and wintering 

habitats that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15 percent would not be conducted 

unless it could be shown to be beneficial to GRSG. Habitat restoration would be prioritized to 

rehabilitate PHMA first. Fuels treatments in PHMA would be designed with an emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and enhancing as well as protecting future sagebrush 

ecosystems. Multiple tools would be considered for fuels reduction and analyzed in NEPA 

compliance documentation before electing to implement prescribed fire in PHMA. Also, within 

PHMA the use of prescribed fire in areas of Wyoming Big Sagebrush, other xeric sagebrush 

species, or where Cheatgrass or other fire-invasive species occur and/or within areas of less than 

12 inches of annual precipitation would be avoided. During wildfire suppression prioritization, 

PHMA would be placed immediately after firefighter and public safety to conserve the habitat.

Fire and fuel management again focuses primarily on PHMA for additional conservation 

management, leaving the remaining GRSG habitat to management similar to Alternative A. 

These conservation measures would make this alternative more beneficial than Alternatives A or 

D.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on GRSG Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

In Alternative E many of the conservation measures are extended to the GHMA increasing their 

effectiveness and reducing the loss or fragmentation of mature sagebrush habitat in these areas. 

Also, key to this alternative is the residual cover direction that is applied to grazing within 5.3 

miles of a lek in both priority and general (with some exceptions) habitats. This direction will 

provide quality GRSG habitat to most of the occupied GRSG habitat.

In this alternative, the Forest Service added additional acreages to PHMA for the TB National 

Grassland to help ensure sufficient legal (NFMA) and CFR direction to meet viability 

requirements on each unit. These areas are associated with important GRSG populations that are 

well distributed within the suitable habitat across each unit. This is habitat that had been 

previously classified as GHMA and is now designated as Priority Core areas. These areas, in 

addition to the previously classified PHMAs, increases the area managed as priority GRSG 

habitats. On the TBNG, this is an increase of 51,067 acres which represents a change in PHMAs 

from about 40 percent to about 50 percent on the TBNG.

Table 1 depicts Forest Service acreage on the TB National Grassland and designated GRSG 

PHMA habitat acres. Of the over one-half million acres of Forest Service lands that comprise the 

TBNG, 275,191 acres (about 50 percent) have been designated as PHMA management areas.

174
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 1: TBNG Acreage and Designated GRSG Core Habitat Acres.

Unit

PHMA

Acres

General

Habitat Acres

Total Acres of

Greater SageGrouse Habitat

Thunder Basin

National

Grassland 275,191 278,673 553,864

Most of the aforementioned conservation measures apply to priority and GHMA. Of importance 

for all resource areas are the 5 percent disturbance cap and one facility per 640 acres density 

limit in PHMA and Sagebrush focal areas. These measures provide additional protection from 

further habitat loss due to anthropogenic development. However, these disturbance allowances 

will still result in minor losses of GRSG habitat.

Considering the above, the Grassland wide habitat could be expected to maintain or improve in

effectiveness and size, in this alternative.

Effects on GRSG Population Trends TBNG-wide

With the addition of the additional PHMAs and expanded management direction for 

PGH habitat, the majority of the GRSG population will fall under enhanced management 

emphasizing GRSG habitat conservation and improvement. Based on current research, this 

direction should provide conditions that would allow the downward population trend to be 

reduced and potentially be turned around. There are many variables and unknowns that may be 

influencing the GRSG population trend on TB National Grassland, however, this alternative tries 

to address as many as could be identified. The results of the implementation of the conservation 

measures in this alternative may take several years to bear fruit. However, if fully implemented, 

and in the absence of a major disease outbreak such as West Nile, it is expected that the 

population trend on TB National Grassland will show a positive response.

Overall, the effects of management in Alternative E are less impacting than Alternatives A and 

D, but are also greater than those impacts associated with Alternative C or Alternative B. Based 

on the above habitat discussion and protections, the GRSG populations have a high probability 

of stabilizing or improving under the management direction of Alternative E. Many of the 

documented stressors have been reduced or removed in GRSG habitat across the National 

Forests and Grassland. This alternative would encourage better habitat conditions that would be 

reflected by increased male attendance at leks. While the potential for West Nile virus is not 

removed, the potential for a larger population distributed across the landscape could increase the 

potential for more birds to survive an outbreak. The expected increase in population trend would 

also provide the opportunity for GRSG to re-populate areas where they are absent or decreasing 

under current management.

175
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus)

Distribution

Sharp-tailed grouse historically were found in Canadian and 21 U.S. states. They ranged from 

Alaska to California and New Mexico and as far east as Quebec, Canada. It is now extirpated 

from California, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico (Wikipedia on line at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp-tailed_Grouse#Distribution). On TBNG, Sharp-tailed grouse 

are MIS in only two geographic areas, the Spring Creek Geographic Area and the Upton/Osage 

Geographic Area. These two areas are also the only areas where Sharp-tailed grouse are known 

to reliably occur on TBNG. Other sightings have been reported, but no Sharp-tailed grouse 

populations have been found within the remaining four geographic areas.

Habitat Associations and Threats

The plains Sharp-tailed grouse was selected as a management indicator species on TBNG for the 

biological community most often found in grasslands with a diversity of structural stages, 

including an abundance of high structure grasslands. Quality nesting cover on mixed grasslands 

occurs where mid and/or tall grass species are dominant and ungrazed or lightly grazed cover has 

accumulated over a few years. On less productive mixed-grass prairies that receive an average of 

14 to 16 inches of precipitation, quality nesting cover is typically found less on upland sites and 

more in the taller and denser cover patches in run-in sites (clumps of tall vegetation surrounded 

by shorter species types or vegetation ) and along drainages become more important for nesting.

Where long-term grazing has reduced the composition of mid and/or tall grass species, quality 

nesting cover is sometimes unavailable regardless of the grazing intensity. Interspersed shrubs 

and shrub communities also contribute to habitat suitability for this species and many other 

wildlife species. Sagebrush and other shrubs provide winter shelter and can provide additional 

foraging areas. Individual patch sizes of quality nesting cover across pastures or range sites 

should be at least 160 acres in size.

On TBNG Sharp-tailed grouse habitat overlaps GRSG habitat. This specie is found most 

prominently in the northern portions of the unit that are periodically rested from annual livestock 

grazing or grazed at light intensities. 

Population Status and Trend

Sharp-tailed grouse do not receive consistent annual monitoring by other agencies, and they are 

primarily monitored by the Forest Service on TBNG. The TBNG population has shown an 

overall increasing population trend over the last 10 years (Figure 5). It should be noted that due 

to concerns about the noticeable decline in lek attendance after the 2007 survey season, 

additional monitoring was implemented. From 2007 to 2012 the population trend was 

predominantly increasing. In 2013 the population dropped noticeably. It is unclear whether this 

is a change in the population trend or a one year event similar to those that occurred in 2007 and 

2011. 

176
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Figure 5. Total Male Sharp-tailed Grouse Observed on TBNG Surface from 2003 through 2013.

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

There would be no changes to the current TBNG system roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new roads and 

upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There is a current Travel Management Plan in 

place addressing all non-special use travel on TBNG. Restrictions on special uses may apply, but 

off-road permits are still issued. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate 

to a greater likelihood of habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance to Sharp-tailed grouse.

Motorized access to most of TBNG is present on authorized roads and it usually means higher 

concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in habitat. In addition, with 

increased road use comes increased noise which has been identified as a specific stressor on 

Sharp-tailed grouse. In this alternative noise associated with traffic would not be moderated in 

Sharp-tailed grouse habitat.

Lands and Realty

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands. Some Sharp-tailed grouse 

habitat could be traded to other ownership where it improves habitat for a R2 Sensitive Species;

parcels are isolated; lands that would reduce boundary conflicts with other ownerships; or are 

otherwise in the public interest. All Forest Service lands would continue to be managed 

according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow 

construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss, fragmentation, 

or degradation. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds and an 

0

50

100

150

200

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Total Males on NFS

YEARS

177
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

increase in edge habitat. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, 

there could be loss or degradation of habitat.

Range

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on TBNG.

Range improvements are designed to not have a direct negative effect on Sharp-tailed grouse. 

Potential adverse effects on Sharp-tailed grouse habitat could include habitat fragmentation due 

to infrastructure development, moderate to heavy livestock grazing, and site specific overgrazing 

during drought years with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual 

vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and 

chick mortality due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

Energy and Minerals

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas has been a predominant use of public 

lands on the TBNG. Since Sharp-tailed grouse are only found in two Geographic Areas (GA) and 

only the Spring Creek GA has seen any recent mineral development, the influence of energy is 

relatively low on its habitat. However, the majority of all Sharp-tailed grouse habitats are open to 

leasing including expansion of existing leases with no cap on surface disturbing activities.

Oil and gas development within the Spring Creek GA has had little identifiable impact on Sharptailed grouse. Habitat conditions and population trends appear to be more closely related to 

grazing intensity and precipitation. However, the above mentioned energy development may still 

cause some impacts as they relate to the: increased anthropogenic disturbance of habitat;, offroad vehicle use; increased traffic on Forest Service and mineral development roads; new road 

construction; road traffic speed; utility corridor permits or easements; water development;

mineral leasing and development; surface occupancy on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial 

campsites; and the development or removal of mineral materials.

Fire and Fuels Management

In the Powder River Basin Sagebrush patch size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres 

to an average of less than 300 acres (from 1966 to 2006), a 63 percent reduction (WGFD 2014).

This reduction has come about from a variety of activities including wildfire and prescribed 

burning. In several cases, these prescribed burns have been designed to specifically improve 

Sharp-tailed grouse habitat. Since Sharp-tailed grouse prefer tall, ungrazed to lightly grazed 

grasslands, both prescribed and wild fire have provided benefits to this bird’s habitat condition.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide 

Sharp-tailed grouse habitat can be influenced by the amount of precipitation and based on recent 

drought conditions it was expected that the overall habitat conditions on TBNG would decline. 

Sharp-tailed grouse habitats can fluctuate annually. With all of this considered, in this alternative

178
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

the Grassland-wide habitat could be expected to vary in effectiveness and size until moisture 

levels stabilize.

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007 with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction and is expected to 

continue. Viability is defined in the NFMA as maintaining abundance and distribution across the 

planning unit. Current management standards in the TBNG LRMP have demonstrated that they 

are sufficient to maintain viability across the planning unit.

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

In Priority GRSG habitats (PPH also known as Core Areas) new road construction would be 

limited to areas with less than 3 percent habitat disturbance and allowing only the minimum 

necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. Existing roads not designated in a 

Travel Management Plan would be reclaimed. All travel would remain on designated routes. 

Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PPH if there was a neutral or beneficial 

impact on GRSG. Road associated noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient 

levels (which are lower in this alternative [20-24 decibels] than Alternative A). All GRSG PPH 

and Important Bird Areas could be designated as SIAs. There would be less disruption of Sharptailed grouse habitat, breeding, and a reduction of road associated mortality. These measures 

allow less habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A retaining more suitable habitat.

Lands and Realty

PPH (Core) would be managed as an exclusion area and PGH would be managed as an 

avoidance area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation 

and acquisition of GRSG PPH (Core). These conservation measures would be more protective 

than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C. 

These conservation measures would also provide habitat protection for Sharp-tailed grouse. 

Range

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PPH (Core). Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. Fencing would be developed to reflect GRSG

needs in all GRSG habitats. Outside of PPH (Core) the potential effects due to livestock grazing, 

vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be the same as Alternative A. Potential 

adverse effects to Sharp-tailed grouse habitat could include habitat fragmentation due to 

infrastructure development and site specific overgrazing during drought years with a potential 

reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative 

179
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

objectives. Inside of PPH (Core) the focus on lighter grazing would also provide additional 

positive impacts for Sharp-tailed grouse in the form of higher residual grasses. 

Energy and Minerals

PPH (Core) would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials, and fluid 

mineral leases. Existing leases would have a four mile no surface occupancy buffer around leks. 

COAs would be attached to existing leases during analysis and approval of exploration and 

development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts on GRSG through a project design. 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for GRSG would 

not be considered within GRSG PHMA. Outside of PPH (Core), mineral development would be 

the same as Alternative A. Impacts associated with anthropomorphic disturbances would be 

reduced for Sharp-tailed grouse improving the quality of the available habitat.

Fire and Fuels Management 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH (Core) and fuels treatments would 

emphasize protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection would 

be emphasized. In GRSG PPH (Core) areas within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, fire is 

not used to treat sagebrush unless as a last resort for fuel breaks and it must be within a 3 percent

disturbance limit. Fire can provide improved habitat conditions for Sharp-tailed grouse by 

increasing grassland habitat and reducing shrub species. In several cases, prescribed burns have 

been designed to specifically improve Sharp-tailed grouse habitat. The reduction of fire could 

slow the establishment of new or expanded Sharp-tailed grouse habitat.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

In this alternative Sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to be maintained or improve slightly. 

The reduction in the availability of fire is expected to contribute to a slower expansion of the 

habitat, but other conservation measures would off-set this by precluding impacts on existing 

habitat.

Effects on Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007 with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction, and since this 

alternative would provide increased habitat protections, it is expected to continue. Viability is 

defined in the NFMA as maintaining abundance and distribution across the planning unit. 

Current management standards in the TBNG LRMP have demonstrated that they are sufficient to 

maintain viability across the planning unit.

180
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

In this alternative conservation measures are generally applied to both PPH (Core Habitat) and 

PGH (GHMA). GRSG priority and GHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion areas for new 

ROW or SUA permits. New road construction would be prohibited within four miles of active 

GRSG leks, and avoided in PPH (Core) and PGH (GHMA). Existing road management would be 

designed to maintain or improve both PPH (Core) and PGH (GHMA). Road associated noise 

would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient levels (20-24 decibels). Camping and 

other non-motorized recreation would be seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG

leks. There would be less disruption of Sharp-tailed grouse habitat, breeding, and a reduction of 

road associated mortality. 

Lands and Realty

No GRSG habitat in PPH (Core) would be exchanged away. The Forest Service will strive to 

acquire important private lands in areas identified as GRSG Special Areas. Alternative C would 

encourage consolidation and acquisition of GRSG habitat. This could cause the loss of some 

Sharp-tailed grouse habitat in exchange for GRSG habitat.

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within GRSG PPH (Core). All new structural range 

developments and location of supplements would be avoided in both PPH (Core) and PGH 

(GHMA) unless they can be shown to benefit GRSG. Grazing and trailing within lekking, 

nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats would be avoided during periods of the year when 

these habitats are utilized by GRSG. Post fire (both prescribed and wildfire) monitoring is 

required in all GRSG habitat to re-establish grazing. Within GRSG PPH (Core) and PGH 

(GHMA), livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas until woody and herbaceous 

plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives. Since Sharp-tailed grouse generally thrive in ungrazed 

of lightly grazed areas, these conservation measures would be a benefit to Sharp-tailed grouse.

Energy and Minerals

No exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will be 

considered within GRSG PPH (Core) and PGH (GHMA). Both GRSG PPH (Core) and PGH 

(GHMA) areas would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are 

terminated, no new nominations/expressions of interest would be accepted for parcels within 

GRSG PPH (Core) or PGH (GHMA). Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed in GRSG PPH 

(Core). Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in GRSG PPH (Core) and PGH 

(GHMA) to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to PPH (Core) and 

PGH (GHMA) GRSG habitat and it would be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude 

activities in breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of use by 

181
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

GRSG. Where existing leases exist in all GRSG habitat, stipulations for the protection of GRSG

or their habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and development 

activities. No construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane 

wastewater would be allowed. All PPH (Core) would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral 

leasing. GRSG PPH (Core) areas would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free 

use permits.

Restrictions to energy development generally reduce the impacts on Sharp-tailed grouse by 

reducing anthropogenic disruptions to the birds and their habitat. Noise, habitat fragmentation, 

and increased loss of habitat would be reduced in this alternative. 

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all GRSG habitat, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented with an emphasis 

on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all GRSG habitats, sagebrush 

reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Also, sagebrush 

canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15 percent within any GRSG habitat 

and vegetation treatments in both habitats would be designed to create landscape patterns which 

most benefit GRSG. For all GRSG habitat, fire would not be used to treat sagebrush in 

precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel break. Post fuels 

management projects will be designed to ensure the long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan must include: 

pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition; establish non-grazing enclosures: and 

include long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years before 

grazing returns. Grazing then should not return to the burn area until woody and herbaceous 

plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in known GRSG

winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in 

the winter range and will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels reduction project 

(roadsides or other areas) in all GRSG habitat would utilize mowing of grass. In PPH (Core) 

habitat areas, fire suppression to conserve the GRSG habitat would be prioritized immediately 

after firefighter and public safety.

Fire can provide improved habitat conditions for Sharp-tailed grouse by increasing grassland 

habitat and reducing shrub species. In several cases, prescribed burns have been designed to 

specifically improve Sharp-tailed grouse habitat. The reduction of fire could slow the 

establishment of new or expanded Sharp-tailed grouse habitat, however, the deferment of grazing 

in burned areas would promote Sharp-tailed grouse habitat.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

In this alternative Sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to be maintained or improve slightly. 

The reduction in the availability of fire is expected to contribute to a slower expansion of the 

182
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

habitat, but other conservation measures would off-set this by precluding impacts on existing 

habitat.

Effects on Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007 with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction and since this 

alternative would provide increased habitat protections, it is expected to continue. Viability is 

defined in the NFMA as maintaining abundance and distribution across the planning unit. 

Current management standards in the TBNG LRMP have demonstrated that they are sufficient to 

maintain viability across the planning unit.

Alternative D 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of Sharp-tailed 

grouse habitat. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 9

percent disturbance in PPH and does require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special 

uses in PPH (Core). The potential changes in Sharp-tailed grouse habitat would be very similar 

to but slightly less detrimental than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PPH (Core) and connectivity habitat will be 

allowed > 0.25 miles from GRSG leks. New ROWs and SUAs in PPH (Core) would generally be 

excluded; those allowed would be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. For Sharp-tailed 

grouse this is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation than allowed in Alternatives 

B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

Range

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Grazing management strategies 

would be developed cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners on an 

allotment-by-allotment basis to improve GRSG habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in PPH, 

GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations could be incorporated. Up to 15

percent of PPH could be retired from grazing where permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes 

their grazing preference in their grazing allotment. Vegetative management and grazing 

infrastructure is essentially the same as Alternative A. With an expected move toward lighter 

grazing to enhance GRSG habitat and up to 15 percent of the PPH having grazing removed, this 

alternative would provide more, high quality habitat than Alternative A, but not as much as in 

Alternatives B, C, and E.

183
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Energy and Minerals

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap that does not exist in Alternative A. Since Sharp-tailed grouse are only found in 

two GAs and only the Spring Creek GA has seen any recent mineral development, the influence 

of energy is relatively low on its habitat. However, the majority of all Sharp-tailed grouse 

habitats are open to leasing including expansion of existing leases, but much of the Spring Creek 

GA falls into a designated PPH (Core) and therefore would be subject to the 9 percent

disturbance cap.

However, within the above mentioned disturbance cap there may still be some impacts as they 

relate to the: increased anthropogenic disturbance of habitat; off-road vehicle use; increased 

traffic on Forest Service and mineral development roads; new road construction; road traffic 

speed; utility corridor permits or easements; water development;, mineral leasing and 

development; surface occupancy on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial campsites; and the 

development or removal of mineral materials. The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush 

outside of PPH (Core) could also lead to these same increased anthropogenic disturbances, only 

they could be greater since there would be no cap on the disturbance. 

Fire and Fuels Management

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in PPH (Core). Treated areas would not be rested from grazing. 

Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. In several cases, these 

prescribed burns have been designed to specifically improve Sharp-tailed grouse habitat. Since 

these Sharp-tailed grouse prefer tall, ungrazed to lightly grazed grasslands, both prescribed and 

wild fire have provided benefits to this bird’s habitat condition. The only adverse effect would be 

the limitation of a 9 percent disturbance which could prevent increased habitat growth in some 

areas.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

In this alternative Sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to be maintained or improve slightly. 

The 9 percent disturbance cap could cause a reduction in habitat improvement projects 

associated with sagebrush removal in some cases. This is expected to contribute to a slower 

expansion of the habitat, but overall Sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to remain stable or 

increase.

Effects on Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007 with a slight decrease 

in 2011. This trend has developed under the current management direction and since this 

alternative would provide increased habitat protections, it is expected to continue. Viability is 

defined in the NFMA as maintaining abundance and distribution across the planning unit. 

184
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Current management standards in the TBNG LRMP have demonstrated that they are sufficient to 

maintain viability across the planning unit.

Proposed Plan Amendment

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA. Similarly, road construction of any category would be 

prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and within 0.25 miles of a lek in GHMA.

In addition, road upgrades would be prohibited in PHMA. Any necessary new roads in PHMA

would be limited to the minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on 

sagebrush lost in PHMA. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from 

March 1 – May 15 on or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses 

would be allowed as long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA.

Conservation measures would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than 

Alternatives A and D but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat 

loss or degradation and less disruption of nesting or hatching, abandonment of young, or 

temporary displacement in sagebrush habitat compared to Alternatives A and D. The restriction 

on road construction or upgrades would limit disturbance and habitat loss, but it would allow 

existing conditions to continue in the remaining Sharp-tailed grouse habitat.

Lands and Realty

Some small amount of sagebrush habitat could be lost, degraded, or disturbed due to the 5

percent allowance for sagebrush habitat lost in PHMA. Conservation measures would allow 

some power lines or upgrades in designated transmission corridors, power lines >0.6 miles from 

occupied leks in PHMA, and some special uses. However, there would be 5,362 acres of ROW 

exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat (Appendix 1). Small sagebrush habitat changes could also 

occur because sagebrush habitat could be exchanged to other ownership in limited situations.

Overall, impacts on sagebrush habitat, predominantly PHMA, would be reduced compared to 

Alternatives A and D, but would be greater than impacts on sagebrush habitat in Alternatives B 

and C.

Sharp-tailed grouse would benefit from conservation measures restricting anthropomorphic 

activities, but could see a loss of habitat if habitat were identified for disposal in favor of GRSG

habitat. Changes of up to 5 percent in sagebrush habitat could result in a positive habitat 

improvement for Sharp-tailed grouse.

Range

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks and in other seasonal habitats. In particular, 

185
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

grazing will be managed to meet a seven inch residual grass height within 5.3 miles of a lek 

during breeding and nesting and four inches post nesting. There would be some exceptions for 

areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest 

Service lands <200 acres. The residual stubble height direction would also benefit Sharp-tailed 

grouse by maintaining nesting habitat for them as well. 

Several other exceptions applied to this direction. First, if 90 percent or more of the allotment 

falls within nesting or brood rearing habitat, 25 percent of the allotment would be exempted from 

meeting residual stubble height requirements. In addition, this direction is not applied to areas 

where GHMA overlap with Management Area 8.4 (Mineral Production), Management Area 3.63 

(Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat), or other designated areas for short-grass species 

(approximately 98,000 acres, or 18 percent of TB National Grassland). There are also areas of 

the TBNG that do not fall within 5.3 miles of a GRSG lek. This would add additional acreages 

that the residual stubble height would not apply to. These exceptions would not be expected to 

provide any positive habitat benefits for Sharp-tailed grouse. Most other conservation measures 

apply to all PHMA.

Livestock grazing and associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized 

in a manner that contributes to rangeland health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush 

habitat. There could also be areas of improved Sharp-tailed grouse habitat for productive 

breeding, nesting, and brood rearing in PHMA and in GHMA.

Potential adverse effects on Sharp-tailed grouse habitat (primarily in PGH habitat) could include 

habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure development, site specific overgrazing during drought 

years with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet 

other vegetative objectives. Related impacts include higher nest predation and chick mortality 

due to a reduction of residual herbaceous material causing a lack of hiding cover.

Energy and Minerals

A maximum of 5 percent disturbance would be allowed within PHMA using the DDTC. A 

minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate would be applied within 

GRSG PHMA. The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be considered and evaluated 

for measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an average of one location per 

640 acres. Where existing leases exist in all GRSG habitat, stipulations for the protection of 

GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and development 

activities. All non-energy leasable and salable mineral activities would be considered in PHMA. 

There are timing and/or distance restrictions for PHMA and GHMA during GRSG breeding and 

winter concentration. All timing, distance, density, and disturbance restrictions will be applied to 

non-energy leasable, salable and locatable mineral activities as well. Development activities,

such as dams and impoundments, will be constructed to reduce the potential for West Nile virus.

186
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Conservation measures in PHMA and PGH could lead to: decreased anthropogenic disturbance 

of Sharp-tailed grouse habitat, decreased off-road vehicle use, decreased traffic on Forest Service

and mineral development roads, and less road construction and utility corridor permits or 

easements. There would also be: a reduced number of water developments; less mineral leasing 

and development: less surface occupancy on mineral leased areas; less noise; fewer industrial 

campsites; and reduced development or removal of mineral materials.

Fire and Fuels Management 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs, and most often, also in GHMA. There is a 5 percent

disturbance limit for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs.

In areas of Wyoming, big sagebrush or other xeric sagebrush species where fire-invasive species 

occur (such as cheatgrass) and/or within areas of less than 12-inch precipitation zones within 

priority and GHMA or SFAs, prescribed fire would be restricted.

In addition, vegetation treatment in PHMA and SFAs in nesting and wintering habitat in 

northeast Wyoming that would reduce sagebrush canopy to <15 percent would also be restricted. 

Fire can provide improved habitat conditions for Sharp-tailed grouse by increasing grassland 

habitat and reducing shrub species. In several cases, prescribed burns have been designed to 

specifically improve Sharp-tailed grouse habitat. The reduction of fire and the 5 percent

disturbance cap could slow the establishment of new or expanded Sharp-tailed grouse habitat.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

In this alternative Sharp-tailed grouse habitat is expected to be maintained or improve slightly. 

The reduction in the availability of fire is expected to contribute to a slower expansion of the 

habitat, but other conservation measures would off-set this by precluding impacts on existing 

habitat.

Effects on Population Trends TBNG-wide

Sharp-tailed grouse populations have been steadily increasing since 2007 with a slight decrease 

in 2011 and 2013. This trend has developed under the current management direction, and since 

this alternative would provide increased habitat protections, it is expected to continue. 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

The Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Prairie dogs) is selected as a management indicator species for low 

structure grasslands and the biological community associated with prairie dog colonies. Some 

species that typically benefit from management for low structure grasslands and maintenance or 

expansion of prairie dog colonies include burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, and mountain 

plover.

187
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Distribution

Prairie dogs historically ranged throughout the Great Plains in short-grass and mixed-grass 

prairies. This R2 Sensitive Species is a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of 

eastern Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG harbors one of the seven major colony 

complexes remaining in North America. Prairie dogs are found throughout TBNG. The 

population for 2013 occupies 22,879 acres.

Habitat Associations and Threats

This species is also a common resident in the short- and mid-grass habitats of eastern Wyoming 

(Cerovski et al. 2004). The TBNG harbors one of the seven major colony complexes remaining 

in North America. Prairie dogs occupy prairies (shortgrass and mixed grass) and shrublands 

dominated by sagebrush on the northern plains. Most soils on the Forest Service lands in the 

planning area are suitable for Prairie dog burrowing. Even soils with shallow bedrock are known 

to support Prairie dog colonies. Prairie dogs may prefer some soils, but few soils in the planning 

area preclude Prairie dog burrowing. Slopes with suitable soils and vegetation that are less than 

10 percent slope are considered preferred habitat. Prairie dogs are highly social, diurnal 

burrowing rodents that typically feed on grasses and forbs. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the 

main unit of a Prairie dog population. Prairie dog abundance and occupied acreage have been 

dramatically reduced throughout its historic range, and continue to exhibit a slow decline 

nationwide (NatureServe 2004). Locally, the population on TBNG is increasing. Major factors 

contributing to the reduction include disease (sylvatic plague), urbanization, habitat conversion, 

and control efforts. 

Population Status, Trend, and Relationship to Habitat Change

The Prairie dog is selected as a MIS on TBNG for low structure grasslands and the biological 

community associated with Prairie dog colonies (Forest Service 2002, Appendix H). MIS for 

TBNG are identified by GA. In accordance with the Grassland Plan (Forest Service 2002), the 

Prairie dog is designated as the MIS to be evaluated for two of the six GAs; however they occur 

in all six Gas at some level. Prairie dogs form colonies that are the main unit of a Prairie dog 

population. Population monitoring for Prairie dogs has been found to be difficult to track over 

time. It has become the accepted norm to use acres of occupied habitat as a surrogate to direct 

population monitoring. This species has the ability to rapidly expand its distribution and 

population if not limited by pest control practices or disease, and they will readily spread into 

recently disturbed areas. The area occupied by BTPDs has declined to approximately 2 percent

of its former range. Conversions of habitat to other land uses and widespread Prairie dog 

eradication efforts combined with sylvatic plague spread by fleas (Yersinia pestis), have caused 

significant population reductions. Although, the species itself is not in imminent jeopardy of 

extinction, its unique ecosystem is jeopardized by continuing fragmentation and isolation 

(USFWS 2009).Of the 2 percent of their original range that Prairie dogs still occupy, 1.5 percent

occur on tribal lands, 0.33 percent occur on federal lands, and only 0.08 percent occur on private 

lands (Miller et al. 2007).

188
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Habitat

Estimated total active acres of Prairie dog colonies within the TBNG from 1996-1997 and from 

2001-2013 are illustrated in Figure 4. Colony acreages experienced a significant reduction from 

1997 through 2000 due to plague outbreak. In 2007 the number of estimated acres of active 

Prairie dogs fell to the lowest point (3,243 individuals) in 12 years due to continuing plague. All 

active Prairie dog colonies on TBNG are mapped annually. The population for 2013 occupies 

22,879 acres. Within TBNG there are 53,873 acres designated by Management Areas Direction

(MA 3.63 and MA 2.1) for the management of Prairie Dogs and Black-footed Ferret 

reintroduction with 36,606 acres (68 percent) of this management area occurring outside of any 

GRSG PHMA. The remaining 17,267 acres (32 percent) fall within the Thunder Basin GRSG

Core Area (PHMA). No direction within this analysis requires the reduction of this habitat in 

favor of GRSG. Prairie dogs and GRSG share some of the same habitats. Historically on TBNG,

GRSG have used Prairie dog colonies for lekking and foraging habitat.

As disturbances associated with fire, grazing, and energy development continue the habitat 

conditions for the Prairie dog continue to improve. 

Figure 4: Prairie Dog Acres - TBNG

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

There would be no changes to the current TBNG system roads, transportation plan, or recreation 

management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new roads and 

upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There is a current Travel Management Plan in 

place that addresses all non-special use travel on TBNG. Restrictions on special uses may apply, 

but off-road permits are still issued. Motorized access to most of TBNG is present on authorized 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Acres

Year

189
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

roads and it usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and 

in habitat. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater likelihood 

of ground disturbance and the increased potential for prairie dog expansion. 

Lands and Realty

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service lands. As a R2 Sensitive Species 

prairie dog habitat acquisition may be emphasized, however, some habitat could be traded to 

other ownership where the parcels are isolated; lands that would reduce boundary conflicts with 

other ownerships; or are otherwise in the public interest. All Forest Service lands would continue 

to be managed according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would 

continue to allow construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in ground 

disturbing activities that could encourage colony expansion.

Range

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on TBNG.

Sagebrush fragmentation due to infrastructure development; habitat conversion of sagebrush 

stands to grasslands for improved livestock forage; and site specific overgrazing during drought 

years with a potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet 

other vegetative objectives can provide or improve Prairie dog habitat conditions.

Energy and Minerals

Energy development consisting of coal, oil, and natural gas has been a predominant use of public 

lands on the TBNG. The majority of TBNG habitats are open to leasing including expansion of 

existing leases with no cap on surface disturbing activities. Disturbances, such as roads, 

pipelines, and staging areas or abandon drill pads, create improved habitat conditions and travel 

corridors through sagebrush and other tall vegetation. As these disturbances increase, the 

potential spread of Prairie dog colonies also increases.

Fire and Fuels Management

Fire is a habitat disturbance factor in the Powder River Basin. Across the basin sagebrush patch 

size has been reduced from an average of 820 acres to an average of less than 300 acres from 

1966 to 2006which is a 63 percent reduction (WGFD 2014). This reduction has come about from 

a variety of activities including wildfire and prescribed burning. 

In this alternative the use of prescribed fire generally is to be designed to maintain or improve 

habitat for desired plants and animals. Prescribed burning is, by design, used to reduce the 

structure and seral condition when used in sagebrush, and this treatment tool is permitted 

throughout TBNG. These treatment impacts could result in removal or loss of up to 25 percent of 

the sagebrush within a stand and a burn area of up to 80 acres in size. As fire (both prescribed 

and wildfire) reduces structural diversity in these sagebrush stands, it creates conditions that 

190
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

allow easier colonization by Prairie dogs and generally is seen as positive for improving their 

habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

In the Alternative A, Prairie dogs are managed following a formal management strategy that 

directs the Prairie dogs and their habitat. Currently Prairie dogs are found on 16,638 acres of 

TBNG, distributed in all GAs. The current LRMP has established the Management Area (MA) 

3.63 where Prairie dogs management is actively and intensively managed. This MA makes up 

44,420 acres of the National Grassland. Within this MA, 10,974 acres are currently occupied. 

The current trend in habitat is upward especially in light of a recent drought and its associated 

reduction in herbaceous structure.

With all of this considered, the Grassland-wide habitat could be expected to continue to increase 

in effectiveness and size in this alternative.

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

Plague has been found on TBNG since 2002. This disease has had devastating impacts on the 

TBNG Prairie dog populations since then reaching a low of 3,243 acres of occupied habitat in 

2007. The population has steadily increased since then now populating over 16,600 acres. The 

current management encourages the continued growth of Prairie dogs across the TBNG.

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

In PHMA, new road construction would be limited to areas with less than 3 percent habitat 

disturbance and allowing only the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current 

roads. Existing roads not designated in a Travel Management Plan would be reclaimed. All travel 

would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA

if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. Road associated noise would be limited to 

less than 10 decibels above ambient levels (which are lower in this alternative [20-24 decibels]

than Alternative A). All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird Areas could be designated as SIAs. 

These restrictions would reduce the amount of growth of Prairie dog habitat within the PHMA

habitats. Outside of PHMA the management would continue similar to Alternative A which 

encourages Prairie dog growth. 

Lands and Realty

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

191
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

acquisition of GRSG PHMA. These conservation measures would be more of an impact than 

conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but less of an impact than Alternative C.

Range

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA (Core). Many livestock 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. Fencing would be developed to reflect GRSG 

needs in all GRSG habitats. Outside of PHMA the potential effects due to livestock grazing, 

vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be the same as Alternative A. Potential 

beneficial effects on Prairie dogs could include habitat enhancement due to infrastructure

development and site specific overgrazing during drought years, with a potential reduction in 

cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives. Inside 

of PHMA, the focus on lighter grazing would also provide an adverse impact in the form of 

higher residual grasses for hiding cover, nesting cover, and predator habitat. Conservation 

measures would be less protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, but more 

protective than Alternatives C and E. These restrictions would reduce the amount of growth of 

Prairie dog habitat within the PHMA habitats. Outside of PHMA the management would 

continue similar to Alternative A which encourages Prairie dog growth.

Energy and Minerals

PPH (Core) would be closed to new coal, energy and non-energy leasable materials, and fluid 

mineral leases. Existing leases would have a four mile, no surface occupancy buffer around leks. 

COAs would be attached to existing leases during analysis and approval of exploration and 

development activities to minimize or avoid the impacts on GRSG through a project design. 

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for GRSG would 

not be considered within GRSG PHMA. Outside of PPH, mineral development would be the 

same as Alternative A. These restrictions would reduce the amount of growth of Prairie dog 

habitat within the PPH habitats. Outside of PPH the management would continue similar to 

Alternative A which encourages prairie dog growth

Fire and Fuels Management 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PPH and fuels treatments would emphasize 

protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Suppression and habitat protection would be 

emphasized. In PPH areas within precipitation zones of 12 inches or less, fire is not used to treat 

sagebrush unless as a last resort for fuel breaks and it must be within a 3 percent disturbance 

limit. With the reduction of fire within PPH, the expansion of Prairie dog habitat could be limited 

due to the lack of this type of vegetation disturbance. Outside of PPH (Core) the management 

would continue similar to Alternative A which encourages Prairie dog growth.

192
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Within PPH the 3 percent disturbance limitation would limit anthropogenic impacts and thus 

reduce the disturbance factor that promotes Prairie dog expiation. With the increased emphasis 

on fire suppression, reduced energy development, and livestock grazing modifications within 

PPH, overall prairie dog habitat usability should remain stable with a potential for decreasing.

Additional protections and directions for PGH will further habitat expansion this alternative. 

This alternative would have more impacts on Prairie dog habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E,

but promotes more than Alternative C. However, specific habitat management direction for 

Prairie dogs and MA 3.63 insure that sufficient habitat will remain to support desired Prairie dog 

levels.

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

With the Prairie dog management strategy in place, and in the absence of a plague outbreak, the 

current population trend is expected to continue to increase, although possibly at a slower rate 

due to the lack of anthropogenic influences. 

With prairie dogs occurring in all GAs and with the current Prairie Dog Management strategy in 

place, this alternative is expected to maintain a viable population of Prairie dogs across the 

planning unit.

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

Conservation measure in this alternative would be more restrictive to Prairie dogs and their 

habitat than other alternatives. In this alternative conservation measures are generally applied to 

both PPH and PGH. GRSG priority and GHMA would be managed as ROW exclusion areas for 

new ROW or SUA permits. New road construction would be prohibited within four miles of 

active GRSG leks and it would be avoided in PPH and PGH. Existing road management would 

be designed to maintain or improve both PPH and PGH. Camping and other non-motorized 

recreation would be seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. There would 

be less disruptive activities. Conservation measure in this alternative would be more restrictive to 

Prairie dogs and their habitat development than other alternatives and would promote the least 

amount of expansion of Prairie dog colonies.

Lands and Realty

No GRSG habitat in PPH would be exchanged away. The Forest Service will strive to acquire 

important private lands in areas identified as GRSG Special Areas. Alternative C would 

encourage consolidation and acquisition of GRSG habitat. This alternative would promote the 

193
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

greatest distribution and highest density of high structure habitat. With the emphasis on GRSG 

habitat, exchanges to promote Prairie dog habitat acquisition would most likely be reduced.

Range

Livestock grazing would be prohibited within GRSG PPH. All new structural range 

developments and location of supplements would be avoided in both PPH and PGH unless they 

can be shown to benefit GRSG. Grazing and trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and 

winter habitats would be avoided during periods of the year when these habitats are utilized by 

GRSG. 

The prohibition of livestock grazing in PPH would reduce ground disturbance and vegetation 

utilization. Both of these activities are effective in creating Prairie dog habitat. Structural 

development control would further reduce habitat modifications from construction associated 

with new fence building, waterline development, and stock water developments. The trailing of 

livestock can also be beneficial by breaking up sagebrush stands and creating areas of low 

vegetation and bare ground which is susceptible to Prairie dog colonization.

Energy and Minerals

Many conservation measures would be applied to GRSG GHMA in addition to PHMA. No 

exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will be considered 

within GRSG PPH and PGH. Both PPH and PGH areas would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. 

As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations/expressions of interest would be 

accepted for parcels within PPH or PGH. Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed in PPH. 

Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in GRSG PPH and PGH. To obtain exploratory 

information for areas outside of and adjacent to PPH and PGH, GRSG habitat would be subject 

to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and winter 

habitats during their season of use by GRSG. Where existing leases exist in all GRSG habitat, 

stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when 

approving exploration and development activities. No construction of evaporation or infiltration 

reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater would be allowed. All PPH would be closed to 

non-energy leasable mineral leasing. PPH areas would be closed to mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits.

The above GRSG conservation measures are designed to reduce or eliminate ground disturbing 

activities associated with mineral development. These conservation measures would be applied 

to more GRSG habitat, in many cases both PPH and PGH. Prairie dog habitat effectiveness 

would be reduced. Since nearly all of TBNG is in either PPH or PGH, many of these restrictions 

would be applied grassland-wide.

Fire and Fuels Management

Within all GRSG habitat on the TBNG, fuels treatments would be designed and implemented 

with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Within all GRSG habitats, 

194
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided. Also, 

sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15 percent within any 

GRSG habitat and vegetation treatments. Both habitats would be designed to create landscape 

patterns which would be of most benefit to GRSG. For all GRSG habitat, fire would not be used 

to treat sagebrush in precipitation zones with less than 12 inches except as a last resort as a fuel 

break. Post-fuels management projects will be designed to ensure the long-term persistence of 

seeded or pre-treatment native plants including sagebrush. Any vegetation treatment plan must 

include pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition; establish non-grazing enclosures;

and include long-term monitoring where treated areas are monitored for at least three years 

before grazing returns. Grazing then should not return to the burn area until woody and 

herbaceous plants achieve GRSG habitat objectives. No fuels treatments would be allowed in 

known GRSG winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire 

risk around or in the winter range and they will maintain winter range habitat quality. Fuels 

reduction project (roadsides or other areas) in all GRSG habitat would utilize mowing of grass. 

In PHMA, fire suppression to conserve the GRSG habitat would be prioritized immediately after 

firefighter and public safety. 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush can be a very useful tool in promoting Prairie dog habitat. The 

substantial loss or restriction of the use of fire would limit Prairie dog habitat expansion. This 

alternative conserves more sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other 

alternatives. This could result in a more difficult time in achieving Prairie dog colony levels. 

While it does not remove Prairie dog habitat, it would slow its growth.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Conservation measures in this alternative would be more restrictive to Prairie dogs and their 

habitat development than other alternatives and they would promote the least amount of 

expansion of prairie dog colonies. The substantial loss or restriction of ground and vegetation 

disturbing activities would limit Prairie dog habitat expansion. This alternative conserves more 

sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than all other alternatives. This could result in 

a more difficult time in achieving Prairie dog colony levels. While it does not remove Prairie dog 

habitat, it would slow its growth.

With the increased emphasis on fire suppression, reduced energy development, and livestock 

grazing modifications, overall prairie dog habitat usability should remain stable with a potential 

for increasing, but at a much slower rate than under current management. Additional protections 

and directions for PGH will further the habitat expansion in this alternative. This alternative will 

likely have more effects on Prairie dog habitat expansion than Alternatives A, D, and E. 

However, specific habitat management direction for Prairie dogs and MA 3.63 insure that 

sufficient habitat will remain to support desired Prairie dog levels.

195
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

With the Prairie dog management strategy in place, and in the absence of a plague outbreak, the 

current population trend is still expected to continue to increase, although possibly at a slower 

rate due to the lack of anthropogenic influences. 

With Prairie dogs occurring in all GAs and with the current Prairie Dog Management strategy in 

place, this alternative is expected to maintain a viable population of Prairie dogs across the 

planning unit.

Alternative D 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more ground disturbance and impacts on sagebrush than most other 

alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 9 percent

disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does require 

consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential changes in 

sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very similar to, but slightly 

more detrimental to Prairie dogs than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from GRSG leks. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the other 

alternatives except Alternative A.

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance and potential habitat 

improvement for prairie dogs than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less than Alternative

A. These same uses would be allowed in PGH.

Range

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Grazing management strategies 

would be developed cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners on an 

allotment-by-allotment basis to improve GRSG habitat. As grazing permits are renewed in PPH, 

GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations could be incorporated. Up to 15

percent of PPH could be retired from grazing where the permittee or lessee voluntarily 

relinquishes their grazing preference in their grazing allotment. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure is essentially the same as Alternative A. Potential adverse effects on

Prairie dog habitat would be limited. The loss of up to 15 percent of grazing within PPH (Core) 

would restrict the expansion of suitable Prairie dog habitat. Habitat development due to 

infrastructure development: habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved 

196
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

livestock forage: and site specific overgrazing during drought years with a potential reduction in 

cover, structure, and diversity would still provide some opportunity for growth.

Energy and Minerals

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and three disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not exist 

in Alternative A. The lack of conservation measures in sagebrush outside of PPH could lead to 

increased anthropogenic disturbance Prairie dog habitat. These could include off-road vehicle 

use; new road construction, utility corridor permits or easements; water development; mineral 

leasing and development; surface occupancy on mineral leased areas; noise; industrial campsites;

and the development or removal of mineral materials. These disturbances have been documented 

to encourage the spread of Prairie dogs.

Fire and Fuels Management

Prescribed fire in sagebrush can be a very useful tool in promoting Prairie dog habitat. In this 

alternative there would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is 

restricted only by the 9 percent disturbance cap in PPH. Treated areas would not be rested from 

grazing. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. This 

allowance alone will promote the expansion of Prairie dogs where they occur in the nearby area. 

These limited conservation measures on PPH (Core) and the lack of measures in the remainder 

of GRSG habitat could have a positive influence on Prairie dogs.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. In Alternative A, 

Prairie dogs are managed following a formal management strategy that directs the management 

of Prairie dogs and their habitat. Currently prairie dogs are found on 16,638 acres of TBNG, 

distributed in all GAs. The current LRMP has established the MA 3.63 where Prairie dogs 

management is actively and intensively managed. The primary difference between Alternative A 

and D is the use of a 9 percent habitat disturbance cap on PPH. Since PPH only makes up 39

percent of the TBNG, 61 percent would not be affected by this cap and would follow the current 

trend. This current trend in habitat availability is upward, especially in light of a recent drought 

and its associated reduction in herbaceous structure.

With all of this considered, the Grassland-wide habitat could be expected to continue to increase 

in effectiveness and size in this alternative.

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. In the Alternative

A, Prairie dogs are managed following a formal management strategy that directs the 

management of Prairie dogs and their habitat. The population has steadily increased over the last 

197
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

six years and it is now occupying over 16,600 acres. The current management encourages the 

continued growth of Prairie dogs across the TBNG.

This alternative mirrors the current management (Alternative A) and the standards in the TBNG 

LRMP. These measures have demonstrated that they are sufficient to maintain viability of the 

black-tailed prairie dog population across the planning unit. Therefore, it is expected that 

Alternative D is sufficient to maintain the population across the TBNG.

Proposed Plan Amendment

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel

New level 4 and 5 roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied GRSG 

leks within GRSG PHMA. No new road construction for any level of road would be allowed 

within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA. Road construction and 

re-construction would be completed only to the minimum construction needs. Disruptive 

activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 within a 0.6 mile 

radius of the perimeter of occupied GRSG leks inside core habitat and connectivity habitat areas. 

In addition, noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek, should not exceed 10 decibels above 

ambient noise. 

Recreation special uses would be allowed in priority and GH only if they did not result in a loss 

of GRSG habitat or have a long-term (more than five years) negative impact on the GRSG or its 

habitat. In addition, T&Cs to protect and restore GRSG habitat will be included in all SUAs.

Conservation measures inside PHMA and SFAs would provide some benefits to Prairie dog

habitat by limiting disturbances associated with roads, road construction, and recreational 

activities. In some cases it may also increase some disturbances in that portion of the PHMA

made up of grassland to avoid disturbances in sagebrush. Conservation measures for GRG 

habitat outside these areas could lead to increased anthropogenic disturbance of Prairie Dog 

habitat, increased traffic on Forest Service and mineral development roads, new road 

construction, and road traffic speed. However, this still would allow existing conditions to 

continue in the remaining Prairie dog habitat.

Lands and Realty

GRSG habitat requirements would be used to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within PHMA and GHMA. New projects within PHMA would include the proposed distribution 

and transmission lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed disturbance. GRSG PHMA would 

be managed as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA permits.

With the emphasis on GRSG habitat, exchanges to promote Prairie dog habitat acquisition would 

most likely be reduced.

198
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Range

Within GRSG core habitat, as appropriate, site specific GRSG habitat objectives and 

management considerations would be incorporated into all grazing permit renewals. Livestock 

grazing and associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a way 

that contributes to rangeland health and maintains and/or improves GRSG and its habitat.

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands >200 acres. In addition, on TB National 

Grassland, Management Areas 8.4 and 3.63 (Minerals Management and Black-footed Ferret 

Reintroduction Habitat) that overlap with GHMA or other areas in GHMA designated for shortgrass species, livestock grazing will be managed to meet those Management Area objectives. 

These exceptions would allow the continued management of Prairie dogs within these areas.

Prairie dog habitat growth derived from livestock management under current conditions would 

most likely continue under this alternative. Sagebrush fragmentation due to infrastructure

development; habitat conversion of sagebrush stands to grasslands for improved livestock 

forage; and site specific overgrazing during drought years would most probably continue 

particularly outside of PHMA. With the potential reduction in cover, structure, and diversity of 

residual vegetation to meet other vegetative objectives, improved Prairie dog habitat conditions 

are likely.

Energy and Minerals

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. Where there are existing leases, stipulations for the 

protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and 

development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions for priority and GHMA

during breeding and winter concentration. All timing, distance, density, and disturbance 

restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and locatable mineral activities as 

well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments, will be constructed to reduce the 

potential for West Nile virus.

A maximum of 5 percent disturbance would be allowed within PHMA habitat using the DDTC. 

A minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate would be applied within 

PHMA habitat areas. The density of oil and gas or mining activities would be considered and 

evaluated for measures that limit or reduce their activities to no more than an average of one

location per 640 acres. Habitat disturbing activities that fit within the 5 percent disturbance cap 

will be designed to cause the least impact possible to GRSG habitat.

Where existing leases exist in all GRSG habitat, stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their 

habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and development activities. 

Reduction of mineral development associated ground and vegetation disturbances inside of 

PHMA would limit Prairie dog colony growth.

199
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Fire and Fuels Management 

Within PHMA and SFAs and GHMA, prescribed fire activities will be designed to move 

vegetative conditions described for GRSG. It will be avoided in areas of Wyoming Big 

sagebrush, other xeric sagebrush species, or where Cheatgrass or other fire-invasive species 

occur and/or within areas of less than 12 inches of annual precipitation unless needed to facilitate 

site preparation for habitat restoration. Fuels treatments will be designed to reduce the spread and 

intensity of wildfires. A maximum of 5 percent disturbance would be allowed within PHMA and 

SFAs using the DDTC. Prescribed fire in nesting and wintering habitats that would reduce 

sagebrush canopy to less than 15 percent would be avoided.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush can be a very useful tool in promoting Prairie dog habitat. The 

substantial loss or restriction of the use of fire would limit Prairie dog habitat expansion. This 

alternative would conserve more sagebrush habitat with higher shrub canopy cover than 

Alternatives A, and E. This could result in a more difficult time in achieving Prairie dog colony 

levels. While it does not remove Prairie dog habitat, it would slow its growth.

Cumulative Effects

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Trends TBNG-wide

Within PHMA (Core) the 5 percent disturbance limitation would limit anthropogenic impacts 

and thus reduce the disturbance factor that promotes Prairie dog expiation. With the increased 

emphasis on fire suppression, reduced energy development, and livestock grazing modifications 

within PHMA, overall prairie dog habitat usability should remain stable with a potential for 

decreasing within the PHMA. Due to the vegetative exceptions outside of PHMA, the potential 

for Prairie dog habitat expansion would be similar to the current conditions which encourage 

growth. Specific habitat management direction for Prairie dogs and MA 3.63 insure that 

sufficient habitat will remain to support desired Prairie dog levels.

Effects on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Population Trends TBNG-wide

With the Prairie dog management strategy in place and in the absence of a plague outbreak, the 

current population trend is expected to continue to increase, although possibly at a slower rate 

due to the lack of some anthropogenic influences within PHMA (Core). 

With Prairie dogs occurring in all GAs and with the current Prairie Dog Management strategy in 

place, this alternative it is expected to maintain a viable population Prairie dogs across the 

planning unit.

Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella brewerii)

Distribution

Brewer’s sparrow is a MIS for the BT and also a R2 Sensitive Species that overlaps with GRSG 

habitat on the TBNG, BT, and MB. Brewer’s sparrows inhabit prairie and foothills shrublands 

200
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

where sagebrush is present. Brewer’s sparrows summer in North America and winter in Central 

or South America.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate species which nests in live sagebrush or on the ground 

at the base of a live sagebrush shrub. Alteration has occurred as a result of extensive, 

ecologically transformative influences of livestock grazing followed by alteration of natural fire 

regimes and invasion by exotic plant species, especially Cheatgrass (Holmes and Johnson 2005).

Across their breeding grounds, the largest threat is permanent loss of Big sagebrush due to land 

use changes such as cultivated agriculture and residential development. Fire and other 

disturbances temporarily reduce nesting habitat, but this turnover of the big sagebrush type is 

needed for its sustained health (Forest Service 2009a). Loss and fragmentation of habitat due to 

agricultural, urban, suburban, energy, and road development also threaten the species.

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat Trend

Brewer’s sparrow is considered globally “secure” by the Natural Heritage Program because of its 

wide distribution across North America. Within Wyoming, trend estimates show non-significant 

decreases between 1966 and 1979 and between 1980 and 2002. Declines are more pronounced 

between 1966 and 1979 than between 1980 and 2002 (Holmes and Johnson 2005). Detection 

frequencies increased slightly in northwest Wyoming from 1966 to 2002. Reported Brewer’s 

sparrow population declines on the breeding areas in North America are likely linked to 

extensive alteration of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) shrub-steppe habitat (Holmes and Johnson 

2005).

There are five North American Breeding Bird Survey routes on the BT. Four of the routes 

showed a positive trend from 1968 to 2003 (+3.3, +18.1, +8.8, and +29.1 percent increase in the 

number on each route). The other route showed a negative trend of -16.2 percent/year. The stable 

to slightly decreasing Forest-wide population trend (one of five routes) mimics the nonsignificant, long-term decline across the State.

The sagebrush biome previously covered 63 million hectares (156 million acres) of western 

North America. Although the current geographic distribution of the Sagebrush biome remains 

the same, very little remains undisturbed or unaltered from its condition before Euro-American 

settlement (Holmes and Johnson 2005). In addition to the thousands of acres where nonnative 

grasses are now mixed with sagebrush, approximately 10 percent of native sagebrush steppe has 

now been completely replaced by invasive annuals or by intentionally seeded nonnative grasses. 

Another 10 percent of the Sagebrush steppe has been converted to dry land or irrigated 

agriculture (Nicholoff 2003).

The Brewer’s sparrow was selected as a MIS for the BT as an ecological indicator for the 

condition of sagebrush. Brewer’s sparrows utilize sagebrush with canopy cover 15 percent - 25

percent or greater (Forest Service 2009a). Herbaceous cover should provide concealment cover:

201
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

sufficient herbaceous vegetation to provide forage (seeds): and habitat for prey insects (Holmes 

and Johnson 2005).

Livestock management and shrubland management on the BT broadly and permanent sagebrush 

removal directly can affect the herbaceous understory and sagebrush canopy cover in Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat. Retaining insufficient herbaceous cover or insufficient shrub cover can 

negatively affect Brewer’s sparrow population trend.

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are well-suited to sustain the 

Brewer’s sparrow population. Rangeland management practices have improved considerably in 

the last 50 years, little sagebrush shrubland has been permanently lost and natural or prescribed 

shrubland disturbance has been limited. In fact, Forest Service (2009a) suggests that “...the 

existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions. Since Brewer’s sparrow thrives in late 

succession sagebrush, there is a larger amount of their habitat in satisfactory condition than 

occurred historically.”

Available population and habitat information suggests Brewer’s sparrows on the BT have a 

population trend that is generally stable to slightly declining. This sparrow is distributed across 

the BT and is well-distributed throughout Wyoming as evidenced by BBS survey results.

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current BT National Forest system roads, transportation plan, 

or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new 

roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on 

recreation special uses. These activities would continue on 5,933 acres of PHMA and 324,243

acres of GHMA. There would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush habitat 

lost to road construction. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a 

greater likelihood of habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance to Brewer’s sparrows. Less 

restrictive recreation travel usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to 

motorized routes and in Sparrow habitat. These can cause disruption of nesting activities, 

abandonment of young, and temporary displacement. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There would 

be 2,107 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). Some Sparrow habitat 

could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic 

benefits in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be managed 

202
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

according to Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow 

construction, maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss, fragmentation, 

or degradation for Brewer’s sparrows. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or 

invasive weeds and an increase in edge habitat. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate 

or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat or disturbance of Brewer’s 

sparrows.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT.

Livestock grazing is permitted on 3,270 acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on the BT.

Potential effects on Brewer’s sparrow habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction 

in cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption and degradation of 

rangeland habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include higher 

nest predation and parasitism. Brewer sparrow abundance is higher in climax communities with 

>25 percent cover than sites with less cover (Holmes and Johnson 2005) so reduced cover could 

result in lower Sparrow abundance. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing 

management usually provide sufficient cover and forage for Brewer’s sparrows across the BT.

For example, the BT LRMP indicates that GRSG species’ needs will be addressed in allotment 

management plans and range improvements, management activities, and trailing will be 

coordinated with and designed to help meet the needs of GRSG.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The 

majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing including expansion of new 

leases (refer to Appendix 1). Fluid mineral leases would be closed on 3,263 acres of GRSG 

habitaton federal surface and federal mineral leases for example (Appendix 1). This alternative 

could cause a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 

sagebrush habitat. There would be greater negative effects from related noise; increased presence 

of roads/humans; and anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open landscape. Recent work 

from developed natural gas fields in Wyoming (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2011) documents 10-20 

percent declines in the abundance of certain sagebrush obligates including Brewer‘s sparrows.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Also, treatment is permitted 

in breeding, nesting, and winter range. Much of Brewer’s sparrow habitat could be treated. There 

would be no disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush moved into an early successional stage by 

wildfires and prescribed fires. Impacts could include removing or losing large tracts of habitat 

due to prescribed fire or wildfire, losing nests, and increasing nonnative or exotic grasses or 

weeds. This alternative does recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009) indicates that “the 

existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

203
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions. Since Brewer’s Sparrow thrives in late 

succession sagebrush, there is a larger amount of their habitat in satisfactory condition than 

occurred historically.” The liberal prescribed fire opportunity in this alternative could decrease 

late succession habitat to a proportion that occurred historically.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. In addition to the National Forest System lands, Brewer’s 

sparrows occur on adjacent private, state, and BLM-administered land. Activities occurring in 

the above resource areas may also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be 

additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, 

energy and mineral development, fire and fuels treatments, and range management in sagebrush 

habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and 

the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels, then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat. While 

there is LRMP guidance to address GRSG habitat needs in allotment management plans, there is 

currently no other specific guidance in the BT LRMP for grazing relative to promoting quality 

GRSG habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development can be permitted (with 

stipulations) on much of GRSG priority, and general habitat (refer to Appendix 1). Since these 

allowable opportunities have not been implemented, sagebrush habitat has remained largely 

intact.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Population Trend

The Brewer’s sparrow population trend on the BT is stable to slightly declining. This population 

trend mimics the current lack of substantial change to sagebrush habitat across the BT. As 

mentioned, however, current LRMP guidance allows a substantial change to sagebrush habitat.

This alternative provides the least amount of guidance to conserve sagebrush habitat for 

Brewer’s sparrow. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient habitat change to reduce the 

probability that the forest-wide population trend would remain stable.

Summary of Alternative A

Existing levels of habitat alteration or loss and disturbance could continue or could increase 

substantially. Limitations would be provided only by Forest Plan guidance, which generally 

allows substantial disturbance and habitat loss in sagebrush habitat. This could allow substantial 

204
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

changes in Brewer’s sparrow habitat quantity, quality, and ownership on sagebrush habitat on the 

BT.

Currently, these potential habitat changes have not occurred and the Brewer’s sparrow 

population trend on the BT is stable to slightly declining. It appears that current sagebrush 

habitat conditions can sustain this population. This trend is noticeably better than the range-wide 

decline observed in other BBS routes. Full use of Alternative A development opportunities in 

sagebrush would lead to a decline in sagebrush habitat which could cause a decline in the BT

Brewer’s sparrow population trend.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 3

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 5,933 acres of PHMA in Alternative B. All travel 

would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA

if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG priority and Important Bird 

Areas could be designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than 

Alternatives A, D, and E, retaining more habitat for Brewer’s sparrows across the BT. There 

would be less disruption of nesting, less abandonment of young, or temporary displacement.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some Brewer’s sparrow habitat 

on the BT National Forest. For example, there would be 5,955 acres of ROW exclusion areas in 

sagebrush habitat (Appendix 1). These conservation measures would be more protective than 

conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C. This 

represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG 

PHMA which also benefits Brewer’s sparrow. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA in favor of GRSG habitat quality; 

therefore, in favor of Brewer’s sparrow sagebrush habitat quality. There are 5,933 acres of 

PHMA across the BT in this alternative. Many livestock infrastructure improvements could 

occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be 

only lightly grazed. The potential effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and 

range improvements would be similar to Alternative A except that Alternative B provides a few 

more restrictions that would protect Brewer’s sparrow habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for less 

205
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

than 5 percent of the sagebrush habitat on the BT, so any changes would be localized. There 

could be small pockets of improved sagebrush habitat quality for productive breeding, nesting, 

and brood rearing for Brewer’s sparrow.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile,

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only four known active leks and only 

5,933 acres of PHMA on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the 

future for GRSG and, consequently, for Brewer’s sparrow. Energy and mineral development 

could still occur on the remainder of 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat.

Additionally, there would be a 3 percent disturbance limitation and a one disturbance/section 

limitation in PHMA. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 8,722 acres of 

GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). This alternative better 

conserves the 5,933 acres of PHMA and, therefore, Brewer’s sparrow habitat, than Alternatives 

A, D, and E and is equal to Alternative C in PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in PHMA. Prescribed burning in PHMA would 

be avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent

disturbance limit. These measures would promote the conservation of Brewer’s sparrow habitat 

and reduce disturbance to Sparrows associated with fire in PHMA. In addition, habitat 

restoration would be a priority. These measures would help support the current forest-wide 

population of Brewer’s sparrows. This alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, 

and E, but conserves less than Alternative C.

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009) indicates that “the 

existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions. Since Brewer’s Sparrow thrives in late 

succession sagebrush, there is a larger amount of their habitat in satisfactory condition than 

occurred historically.” The limited prescribed fire opportunity in this alternative will continue to 

maintain more late succession habitat than occurred historically in PHMA.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Brewer’s sparrow habitat also occurs on private, state, 

and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, ROWs, energy and mineral development, range management, and fire 

and fuels management in Brewer’s sparrow habitat off the BT. However, anthropogenic 

206
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

disturbances >3 percent on all ownerships in PHMA would restrict more disturbance on federal 

lands. Cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this 

GRSG amendment.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA. PHMA constitutes <5 percent

of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat and Brewer’s sparrow habitat on the BT. While this 

alternative will maintain some habitat quantity and improve some habitat quality for Brewer’s 

sparrow, the benefits would be small in relation to the amount of Brewer’s sparrow habitat 

available across the BT.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Population Trend

The Brewer’s sparrow population trend on the BT is stable to declining slightly. The population 

trend is not expected to change substantially as a result of improvements across <5 percent of 

Brewer’s sparrow sagebrush habitat across the BT.

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in PHMA which is <10 percent of the 

forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow habitat. There would be benefits to individual Sparrows, but these 

would likely be too small to noticeably affect the forest-wide population trend. Generally, 

activities in GHMA and the remaining sagebrush habitat on the BT will occur as they do 

currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities affect most (>90 percent) 

Brewer’s sparrow habitat on the BT. Therefore, overall impacts on Brewer’s sparrow forest-wide 

population would be generally similar to but reduced compared to Alternatives A and D.

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to Brewer’s sparrows and their habitat than 

other alternatives. Conservation measures would generally be applied to GHMA (324,243 acres) 

in addition to PHMA. Therefore, these measures would benefit more acres of Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat than other alternatives. New road construction is prohibited within four miles of active 

GRSG leks, and it is avoided in priority and GHMA. Existing road management would be 

designed to maintain or improve both priority and GHMA. Camping and other non-motorized 

recreation would be seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These 

measures allow the least habitat loss and disturbance among alternatives. Habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and disturbance would be reduced on much of the forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat. There would be greatly reduced disruption of nesting activities, abandonment of young,

or temporary displacement. 

207
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for Brewer’s sparrows. Priority and 

GHMA would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects (Appendix 1) protecting 

much of the forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow habitat. Alternative C would encourage consolidation 

and acquisition of GRSG limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat. This alternative would promote the greatest distribution and highest density of Brewer’s 

sparrows forest-wide.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the BT in this alternative. The prohibition of livestock 

grazing in PHMA would retain the most herbaceous cover for nest concealment, seed 

production, and insect production among Alternatives. These results would provide the greatest 

opportunity among Alternatives for reduced nest predation and parasitism and sparrow fitness in 

PHMA. Since PHMA is <5 percent of forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow habitat, benefits would 

occur to individuals and not be noticed across the population.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to Brewer’s sparrows and their habitat than 

other alternatives. Many conservation measures would be applied to GHMA (324,243 acres) in 

addition to PHMA. Therefore, conservation measures would benefit more acres of sparrow 

habitat than most other alternatives. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 

315,583 acres of GRSG sagebrush habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases 

(Appendix 1). No exceptions, waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs 

will be considered within priority (5,933 acres) and GHMA. As existing leases expire or are 

terminated, no new nominations would be accepted for parcels within priority or GHMA.

Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in priority and GHMA to obtain exploratory 

information for areas outside of and adjacent to these habitats and they would be subject to 

seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in GRSG breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and 

winter habitats during their season of use by GRSG. All PHMA would be closed to non-energy 

leasable mineral leasing. PHMA would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free 

use permits. Overall, habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance would be reduced on much of 

the forest-wide, Brewer’s sparrow habitat. There could be greatly reduced disruption of nesting 

activities, abandonment of young, or temporary displacement. Measures such as the seasonal 

restriction on disturbance in nesting habitat would achieve these results.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA and GHMA, promoting the 

conservation of mature sagebrush habitat. Sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be 

reduced to less than 15 percent. Prescribed burning in priority and GHMA would be avoided in 

<12 inch precipitation zone. This alternative conserves more sagebrush habitat with higher shrub 

208
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

canopy cover than all other alternatives. These measures would promote the conservation of 

Brewer’s sparrow habitat and reduce disturbance to sparrows associated with fire. As mentioned 

earlier, Brewer’s sparrow abundance is higher in stands with >25 percent canopy cover (Holmes 

and Johnson 2005). This alternative would maintain more acres of sagebrush in a condition to 

support Brewer’s sparrows by maintaining shrub canopy cover. These measures would help 

support the current forest-wide population of Brewer’s sparrows.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Brewer’s sparrow habitat also occurs on private, state, 

and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, range management, 

and fire and fuels management in Brewer’s sparrow habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are 

discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG priority and GHMA. These habitats 

comprise much of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush Brewer’s sparrow habitat on the BT. This 

alternative will maintain and improve habitat quantity and quality across the BT for Brewer’s 

sparrow more than other alternatives.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Population Trend

The Brewer’s sparrow population trend on the BT is stable to slightly declining. The population 

trend could remain stable or increase with conservation measures on >75 percent of Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat if substantial habitat loss or degradation does not occur on the remaining <25

percent of forest-wide habitat that will not benefit from the proposed conservation measures.

Summary of Alternative C

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in general and PHMA which is >75

percent of the forest-wide Brewer’s sparrow habitat. There could be benefits to individual 

sparrows across much of the forest-wide habitat that could be observed in the forest-wide 

population trend compared to other alternatives. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush 

habitat on the BT will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows.

Overall this alternative would promote the greatest abundance of Brewer’s sparrows forest-wide.

Currently, potential habitat changes on the remaining 40 percent of habitat have not occurred and 

the Brewer’s sparrow population trend on the BT is stable to slightly declining. It appears that 

current habitat conditions can sustain this population. This trend is noticeably better than the 

range-wide decline observed in other BBS routes. Full use of conservation measures in 

209
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative C in PHMA and GHMA could slow any forest-wide decline of Brewer’s sparrow 

population if the remaining 40 percent of sagebrush on the BT was managed to the limit of 

allowable disturbances.

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 

9 percent disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does 

require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential 

changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very similar to but 

slightly less detrimental to Brewer’s sparrows than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA will be allowed > 0.25 miles from the four

known leks and any new leks on the BT. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the 

other alternatives except Alternative A. This disturbance would affect <1 percent of the forestwide Brewer’s sparrow habitat. A few more Brewer’s sparrows could be disrupted, habitat lost, 

nests lost, or young abandoned.

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

These same uses would be allowed in the GHMA.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. Many conservation measures for

Alternative D apply to priority core habitat. A few slight differences included in this alternative 

recommends considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in response to 

drought in priority core habitat. Since priority core habitat is <10 percent of forest-wide Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat, these conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide 

population.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and a three disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not 

exist in Alternative A. As an example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 2 acres of GRSG 

habitaton federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Recent work from developed 

210
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

natural gas fields in Wyoming (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2011) documents 10-20 percent declines in 

the abundance of certain sagebrush obligates including Brewer‘s sparrows. The lack of 

conservation measures in sagebrush outside of priority core habitat could lead to increased 

disturbance, loss of habitat, degradation of habitat, loss of nests, or abandonment of young.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Sagebrush treatment would follow 

WGFD Protocols for treating sagebrush to benefit GRSG; a tool to determine whether proposed 

treatment constitutes a “disturbance” contributing toward the 9 percent threshold. Treatment is 

permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. Treated areas would not be rested from 

livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious weeds and a lack 

of cover, reducing Brewer’s sparrow habitat quality. Brewer sparrow abundance is higher in 

climax communities with >25 percent cover than sites with less cover (Holmes and Johnson 

2005) so reduced cover could result in lower sparrow abundance. These limited conservation 

measures in PHMA and the lack of measures in the remainder of Brewer’s sparrow habitat 

would have detrimental impacts on Brewer’s sparrows compared to Alternatives B, C, and E.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. In 

addition to impacts described above, Brewer’s sparrow habitat also occurs on private, state, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also

occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, 

especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional loss, degradation, or 

disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, range 

management, and fire and fuels management in Brewer’s sparrow habitat off the BT. Cumulative 

effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this 

GRSG amendment.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels, then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG (and Brewer’s 

sparrow) habitat. Range conservation measures in Alternative D apply only to priority or priority 

core habitat which is 1 percent of Brewer’s sparrow habitat on the BT. Therefore, sagebrush 

habitat quality could be reduced on the majority of Brewer’s sparrow habitat. Likewise, oil, gas,

and geothermal development can be permitted (with stipulations) on much of GRSG priorityand 

general habitat subject only to a 9 percent disturbance limit in priority core habitat. This 

211
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

alternative will allow substantial loss or degradation of Brewer’s sparrow habitat compared to 

Alternatives B, C, and E.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Population Trend

The Brewer’s sparrow population trend on the BT is stable to slightly declining. This population 

trend mimics the current lack of substantial change to sagebrush habitat across the BT. As 

mentioned, however, Alternative D allows a substantial change to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, 

this alternative would allow sufficient habitat change to reduce the probability that the forestwide population trend would remain stable.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. However, this alternative includes a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat, which conserves <1 percent of forest-wide 

Brewer’s sparrow habitat, and the limited conservation measures in other sagebrush habitat will 

have detrimental impacts on Brewer’s sparrows compared to Alternatives B, C, and E. Allowable 

activities could cause substantial changes in Brewer’s sparrow habitat quantity, quality, and 

fragmentation.

Currently, these potential habitat changes have not occurred and the Brewer’s sparrow 

population trend on the BT is stable to slightly declining. It appears that current habitat 

conditions can sustain this population. This trend is noticeably better than the range-wide decline 

observed in other BBS routes. Full use of development opportunities in sagebrush areas not 

conserved by Alternative D would lead to a decline in sagebrush habitat which would reduce the 

probability that the forest-wide population trend would remain stable.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs. These habitats are >97,000 acres. Similarly, 

secondary road construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and 

SFAs and both would be prohibited within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades 

would be prohibited in PHMA and SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would 

be limited to the minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on sagebrush 

lost in PHMA and SFAs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from 

March 1 – May 15 on or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses 

would be allowed as long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than 

Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat 

212
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

loss or degradation and less disruption of nesting or hatching, abandonment of young, or 

temporary displacement in sagebrush habitat compared to Alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some short-term impacts could occur. Some small amount of Brewer’s sparrow sagebrush 

habitat could be lost, degraded, or disturbed due to the 5 percent allowance for sagebrush habitat 

lost in PHMA or SFAs. Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in 

designated transmission corridors, power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and 

SFAs, and some special uses. However, there would be 3,283 acres of ROW exclusion areas in 

sagebrush habitat (Appendix 1). Small sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because 

sagebrush habitat could be exchanged to other ownership in limited situations. Overall, impacts 

on sagebrush habitat, predominantly PHMA and SFAs, would be reduced compared to 

Alternatives A and D, but would be greater than impacts on sagebrush habitat in Alternatives B 

and C.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks and in other seasonal habitats. Most 

conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and associated range 

improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that contributes to rangeland 

health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These measures would also maintain 

or improve sagebrush habitat quality for Brewer’s sparrow. There could be areas of improved 

habitat for productive breeding, nesting, and brood rearing for Brewer’s sparrows in PHMA and 

SFAs and, sometimes, in GHMA.

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands <200 acres. Potential adverse effects on

sagebrush habitat from this exception could include habitat loss or degradation or fragmentation 

due to infrastructure development.

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and 

GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B provides more restrictions on livestock 

grazing in PHMA, none in SFAs, and not as much within GHMA. Alternative C would apply to 

PHMA and, most often, to GHMA promoting sagebrush habitat quality for Brewer’s sparrow 

more than other alternatives.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit and one 

facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs. Habitat disturbing activities that fit 

within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed to cause the least possible impact on GRSG 

habitat. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 3,262 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface 

213
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, stipulations for the 

protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and 

development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions for PHMA, SFAs, and 

GHMA during GRSG breeding and winter concentration. All timing, distance, density, and 

disturbance restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and locatable mineral 

activities as well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments, will be constructed 

to reduce the potential for West Nile virus.

Conservation measures in PHMA, SFAs, and often, GHMA, would provide habitat benefits to 

Brewer’s sparrow, a sagebrush obligate. The conservation measures for this alternative maintain 

or protect sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. For 

example, alternative A has no disturbance limit and Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance 

limit, compared to 5 percent for this alternative. Alternative D also allows three energy 

production locations per 640 acres and Alternative A has no limitation. Alternatives B and C are 

generally more restrictive or prohibitive to energy development than this alternative.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs, and most often, also in GHMA. There is a 5 percent

disturbance limit for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs. In addition, vegetation 

treatment in PHMA and SFAs in nesting and wintering habitat in northeast Wyoming that would 

reduce sagebrush canopy to <15 percent would be restricted.

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush than Alternatives A 

and D considering a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit for these alternatives, 

respectively. Sagebrush treatment would be limited by Table 1 Seasonal Habitat Desired 

Conditions, the 5 percent disturbance cap, and the standards and guidelines for Fire Management 

in this alternative to maintain sagebrush in priority and GHMA management areas. Therefore, 

impacts on mature sagebrush habitat and Brewer’s sparrow would be reduced.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Brewer’s sparrow habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to 

the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are 

some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there 

could be additional loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, 

energy and mineral development, range management, and fire and fuels management in Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat off the BT. However, anthropogenic disturbances >5 percent on all ownerships 

in PHMA and SFAs would restrict more disturbance on federal lands. Cumulative effects are 

discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

214
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA, SFAs, and often, GHMA.

These habitats comprise >60 percent of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat, Brewer’s sparrow 

habitat, on the BT. This alternative will maintain and improve habitat quantity and quality across 

the BT for Brewer’s sparrow more than other alternatives except Alternative C and sometimes 

Alternative B.

Effects on Brewer’s sparrow Population Trend

The Brewer’s sparrow population trend on the BT is stable to slightly declining. The population 

trend could remain stable or increase with conservation measures on >60 percent of Brewer’s 

sparrow habitat if substantial habitat loss or degradation does not occur on the remaining <40

percent of forest-wide habitat that will not benefit from the proposed conservation measures.

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent and one

disturbance per 640 acres. This 5 percent disturbance allowance will cause some small loss of 

sagebrush habitat quantity and quality for Brewer’s sparrow. This alternative also limits 

disturbing activities in PHMA and SFAs, and often, GHMA. In total, there are >270,000 acres of 

PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA on the BT. There would be less loss or fragmentation of mature 

sagebrush habitat. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat will occur as they do 

currently or could expand as existing direction allows. Overall, effects of the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would be less impacting to Brewer’s sparrow than Alternatives A and D. Impacts 

would be more pronounced than Alternative C and be broadly comparable to Alternative B.

Currently, allowable habitat changes have not occurred and the Brewer’s sparrow population 

trend on the BT is stable to slightly declining. It appears that current habitat conditions can 

sustain this population. This trend is noticeably better than the range-wide decline observed in 

other BBS routes. Full use of conservation measures in the Proposed Plan Amendment in 

PHMA, SFAs, and in some cases, GHMA could slow any forest-wide decline of Brewer’s

sparrow population if the remaining sagebrush on the BT outside of these management areas was 

managed to the limit of allowable disturbances.

Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni)

Distribution

Elk is a MIS for the BT that overlaps with GRSG habitat on the National Forest. Rocky 

Mountain elk are common throughout the Rocky Mountains and western states and have been 

introduced into several other states.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Virtually all of the BT, >3,000,000 acres, provides elk habitat (Forest Service 2009a). They use a 

wide variety of vegetation types to meet their life history needs including aspen, several conifer 

215
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

types, big sagebrush, several mountain shrubland types, meadows, grasslands, herblands, and tall 

forbs.

Threats can include competition with livestock, predation, and aspen decline. For these elk herds, 

transmission of brucellosis among elk at State established feedgrounds is a concern (Forest 

Service 2009a). 

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat Trend

Elk harvest across Wyoming has averaged >20,000 animals annually since 2002 and it has 

increased slightly the last three years (WGFD 2011). Elk are abundant in suitable habitat across 

the State.

The BT includes 11 elk herds. These elk herds are supported by annual feeding operations on 

winter feedgrounds. The population trend for these elk herd units has been trending slightly 

downward but the elk population was above the WGFD objectives by approximately 12 percent

in 2005 for the herd units within the BT, and it remains above objectives in 2008 (Forest Service

2009a). The slight downward trend on the BT is due to harvest designed to reduce the 

population. The high elk numbers on the BT mimic the high Statewide population status.

Rocky Mountain elk was selected as a MIS for the BT as a harvest species reflecting 

socioeconomic status. Elk use many habitat types; those overlapping with GRSG habitat are 

generally elk winter ranges comprised of sagebrush and aspen.

Some habitat conditions appear to be declining slowly. Aspen regeneration has been reduced, 

particularly around elk feedgrounds. Aspen distribution and stand vigor has declined due to 

aging stands and related conifer encroachment. Mountain shrub stands are predominantly mature 

and often decadent. In contrast, riparian, willow, and grassland communities have improved due 

to improvements in grazing management compared to historic times.

Livestock management and vegetation management on the BT can affect forage quality and 

quantity for elk. Retaining insufficient shrub, aspen, or herbaceous production can negatively 

affect the elk population trend. Prohibiting shrub and aspen regeneration within appropriate time 

intervals can reduce the quality and quantity of forage production. Forest Service (2009) suggests 

that lack of disturbance is affecting the quality of this elk habitat.

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are sustaining the elk 

population. Most elk in this population use winter feedgrounds. Rangeland management 

practices have improved considerably in the last 50 years and little sagebrush shrubland has been 

permanently lost. The lack of natural or prescribed disturbance has created a higher proportion of 

older age class shrub stands and a decline in aspen vigor than occurred historically (Forest 

Service 2009a). 

216
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Available population and habitat information suggests elk on the BT have a population trend that 

is generally stable to slightly declining. The slight decline appears to be directly related to 

harvest strategies designed to reduce the population to State population management objectives.

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current BT National Forest system roads, transportation plan, 

or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new 

roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on 

recreation special uses. These activities would continue on 5,933 acres of PHMA and 324,243

acres of GHMA and there would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush habitat 

lost to road construction. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a 

greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to elk. Less restrictive recreation travel usually 

means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in elk habitat. These 

can cause animal displacement, disruption of parturition, or reduced fitness in sagebrush habitat. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There would 

be 2,107 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG sagebrush habitat. Some elk habitat could be 

traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic benefits 

in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be managed according to 

Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, 

maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or degradation for elk. Other 

impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds. Though most projects would 

attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat or 

disturbance of elk.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT.

Livestock grazing occurs on 2,098,560 acres of the 3,400,000 acres of the BT. Livestock grazing 

occurs on >230,000 acres (>70 percent) of GRSG habitat, which is also habitat for elk. Potential 

effects on elk habitat could include: site specific overgrazing; reduction in cover, structure, and 

diversity of residual vegetation from consumption; and degradation of rangeland habitat due to 

trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include reduced fitness for winter 

survival. Reduced range condition could also cause elk on this Forest to rely more on winter 

feedgrounds. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management usually provide 

sufficient herbaceous forage for elk across the BT.

217
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The 

majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing including expansion of new 

leases. This alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 3,263

acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). There would 

be greater negative effects from related noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and 

anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance 

could cause elk to rely more on winter feedgrounds.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. A lot of elk habitat could be 

treated. There would be no disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush moved into an early 

successional stage by wildfires and prescribed fires. Impacts could include creating more grass 

forage for elk benefitting survival of individuals. Results could make elk less reliant on winter 

feedgrounds. There could also be increasing nonnative or exotic grasses or weeds. This 

alternative does recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Elk habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands create more foraging habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional habitat 

loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in elk habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed 

at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Elk Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels, then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat which is 

also elk habitat. While there is LRMP guidance to address GRSG habitat needs in allotment 

management plans, there is currently no other specific guidance in the BT LRMP for grazing 

relative to promoting quality GRSG habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development can 

be permitted (with stipulations) on >300,000 acres of GRSG priority and general habitat. Since 

these allowable opportunities have not been implemented, sagebrush habitat has remained 

largely intact as elk habitat.

218
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on Elk Population Trend

The elk population trend on the BT is slowly declining as a result of harvest strategies directed at 

reducing the population to meet State objectives. This population trend (declining only as a result 

of harvest management) mimics the current lack of substantial change to sagebrush habitat 

across the BT. However, as mentioned, current LRMP guidance allows a substantial change to 

sagebrush habitat. This alternative provides the least amount of guidance to conserve sagebrush 

habitat for elk. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient habitat change that population 

reduction would cause by more than harvest management.

Summary of Alternative A

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for 

habitat alteration or loss and disturbance in this elk habitat. Limitations would be provided only 

by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in the 430,870 acres of 

sagebrush habitat. Conversion to grass forage with fuels treatments would benefit elk. However, 

limited conservation in the other four resource areas could allow substantial changes in elk 

habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the BT.

Currently, existing Forest Plan allowances have not caused substantial disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps generally with elk winter and transition range on the Forest. Substantial 

changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the BT is slightly 

declining due to harvest strategy. It appears that current sagebrush habitat conditions can sustain 

this population considering that 80 percent of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds 

(Forest Service 2009a). This abundance of elk mimics the status of elk populations Statewide.

Full use of Alternative A conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small benefit to 

the elk population trend since elk occur across all habitats on the BT, the conservation measures 

are limited in GRSG habitat, and elk are supported on winter feedgrounds.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 3

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 5,933 acres of PHMA in Alternative B. All travel 

would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA

if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird 

Areas could be designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than 

Alternative A retaining more habitat for elk across the BT National Forest. There would be less 

displacement, disruption of parturition, or reduced elk fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, 

219
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

these benefits would occur on <1 percent of Forest-wide elk habitat so they would not be 

reflected in the population trend. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some elk habitat on the BT. There 

would be 5,955 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat. These conservation 

measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but 

less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity 

and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PHMA which also benefits elk habitat. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA in favor of GRSG; therefore, in 

favor of elk sagebrush habitat quality. There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the BT in this 

alternative. Many livestock infrastructure improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland 

or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. The potential 

effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be 

similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides a few more restrictions that would 

protect elk habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for less than 5 percent of the land cover of the BT so 

any changes would be localized. There could be small pockets of improved areas of productive 

foraging for elk.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile 

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only four known active leks and only 

5,933 acres of PHMA on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the 

future for GRSG and, consequently, for elk. Energy and mineral development could still occur 

on the remainder of 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PHMA, 

and therefore elk habitat, than Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to Alternative C in PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration and recovery would be emphasized in PHMA. Prescribed burning in PHMA would be 

avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent

disturbance limit. These measures would limit the creation of grass foraging areas on PHMA.

This habitat could not be improved for elk foraging. Still, this is <5 percent of the sagebrush 

habitat on the BT. There would likely be no noticeable impact on the elk population. This 

alternative conserves more habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E, but conserves less than 

Alternative C.

220
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009a) indicates that “the 

existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Elk habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands create more foraging habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in elk habitat off the BT. However, anthropogenic 

disturbances >3 percent on all ownerships in PHMA would restrict more disturbance on federal 

lands. Cumulative effects are discussed in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this 

GRSG amendment.

Effects on Elk Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA. PHMA constitutes <5 percent

of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. While this alternative will maintain some 

habitat quantity and improve some habitat quality for elk, the benefits would be small in relation 

to the amount of habitat available to elk across the BT, >3,000,000 acres.

Effects on Elk Population Trend

The elk population trend on the BT is slowly declining as a result of harvest strategies directed at 

reducing the population to meet state objectives. The population trend is not expected to change 

substantially as a result of improvements across <1 percent of sagebrush winter and transition 

habitat across the BT.

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits disturbance in PHMA which is <1 percent of the forest-wide elk habitat.

There could be benefits to individual elk, but these would likely be too small to affect the forestwide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit 

improvements in herbaceous forage. Generally, activities in GHMA and the remaining sagebrush 

habitat on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing 

direction allows. These activities affect almost all (>95 percent) sagebrush habitat on the BT

National Forest. Therefore, proposed conservation measures effects on the elk forest-wide 

population would be minimal. 

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the 

BT National Forest is stable to slightly declining due to harvest strategy. It appears that existing 

221
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed conservation measures can sustain this population 

considering that 80 percent of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds (Forest Service

2009a). This abundance of elk mimics the status of elk populations statewide. Full use of 

Alternative B conservation measures in GRSG habitat that would have no noticeable impact on 

the elk population trend since elk occur across all habitats on the BT, the conservation measures 

are generally limited to PHMA, and elk are supported on winter feedgrounds.

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to elk and their sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Measures would generally be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, 

these measures would benefit more than 324,000 more acres of elk habitat than other 

alternatives. New road construction is prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks, and 

avoided in priority and GHMA. Existing road management would be designed to maintain or 

improve both priority and GHMA. Camping and other non-motorized recreation would be 

seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These measures allow the least 

habitat loss and disturbance among Alternatives. Habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced 

on +8 percent of the forest-wide elk habitat. There would be less disruption of wintering and 

parturition. There could be less reliance on elk feedgrounds. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for elk sagebrush habitat. PHMA and 

GHMA would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. This is >75 percent of 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of 

all designated habitat, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the BT in this alternative. The prohibition of livestock 

grazing in PHMA would retain the most herbaceous forage to support elk on transition and 

winter ranges. This result would provide the greatest opportunity among Alternatives for elk 

fitness and reduced reliance on feedgrounds. Still, PHMA is <1 percent of forest-wide elk habitat 

benefits would occur to individuals and not be noticed in the population trend.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to elk and their habitat than other alternatives.

Many conservation measures would be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, 

conservation measures would benefit more than 300,000 more acres of Elk sagebrush habitat 

than other alternatives. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 315,582 acres of 

GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). No exceptions, 

waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&C will be considered within priority 

222
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

(5,933 acres) and GHMA (324,243 acres). Priority and GHMA would be closed to fluid mineral 

leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations would be accepted for 

parcels within priority or GHMA. Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in priority and 

GHMA to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to these habitats and 

it would be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in GRSG breeding, nesting, 

brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of use by GRSG. All PHMA would be 

closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. PHMA would be closed to mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free use permits. Overall, habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced

on +10 percent of the forest-wide elk habitat. There could be noticeably reduced disruption on 

winter and transition ranges possibly leading to less reliance on feedgrounds compared to 

Alternative A. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA and GHMA, promoting the 

conservation of mature sagebrush habitat. Sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be 

reduced to less than 15 percent. Prescribed burning in priority and GHMA would be avoided in 

<12 inch precipitation zone. This would limit the creation of grass foraging areas across 

>324,000 acres of sagebrush. This habitat could not be improved for Elk foraging. This is >75

percent of the sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest.

Lack of sagebrush treatment does not entice Elk to leave feedgrounds for native range.

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009) indicates that “the 

existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Elk habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands creates more foraging habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT National Forest. Activities 

occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be 

additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, 

energy and mineral development, and range management in elk habitat off the BT. Cumulative 

effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this 

GRSG amendment.

Effects on Elk Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG priority and GHMA. These habitats 

comprise >75 percent of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. This alternative will 

223
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

maintain and improve Elk winter and transition habitat quantity and quality across the BT more 

than other alternatives, perhaps causing elk to be less reliant on winter feedgrounds. Still, the 

benefits would be small in relation to the >3,000,000 acres of elk habitat available across the BT.

Effects on Elk Population Trend

The elk population trend on the BT is slowly declining as a result of harvest strategies directed at 

reducing the population to meet state objectives. Improvements to >75 percent of winter and 

transition ranges might require additional harvest to continue decreasing the population toward 

the State management objective.

Summary of Alternative C

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in general and PHMA, which is >75 percent of the 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. There could be benefits to elk across much of this forest-wide 

habitat that could be observed in the forest-wide population trend compared to other alternatives.

However, the limit on sagebrush treatment limits opportunities to improve winter and transition 

range and encourage elk to rely less on feedgrounds. Generally, activities in the remaining 

sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as 

existing direction allows.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the 

BT National Forest is declining slightly due to harvest strategy. It appears that existing sagebrush 

habitat conditions with proposed conservation measures can sustain this population considering 

that 80 percent of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds (Forest Service 2009a). This 

abundance of elk mimics the status of elk populations statewide. Full use of Alternative C 

conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a noticeable impact on the Elk population 

trend since measures would affect >75 percent of the BT National Forest’s sagebrush habitat.

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 

9 percent disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does 

require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential 

changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very similar to but 

slightly less detrimental to elk than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA will be allowed > 0.25 miles from the four

known leks and any new leks on the BT. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the 

224
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

other alternatives except Alternative A. This disturbance would affect <1 percent of the forestwide Elk habitat. A few more Elk could be disrupted or a little habitat lost.

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

These same uses would be allowed in GHMA.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

Alternative D apply to priority core habitat. A few slight differences include this alternative 

recommends considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in response to 

drought in priority core habitat. Since priority core habitat is <1 percent of forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat, these conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide elk 

population.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acre limit in priority core habitat that does not 

exist in Alternative A. The conservation measures would benefit 5,593 acres of Elk sagebrush 

habitat. Fluid mineral leases would be closed on 2 acres of GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). Energy 

and mineral development could still occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat.

This alternative better conserves priority core habitat and, therefore, some limited elk habitat 

than Alternative A.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Sagebrush treatment would follow 

WGFD Protocols for treating sagebrush to benefit GRSG; a tool to determine whether proposed 

treatment constitutes a “disturbance” contributing toward the 9 percent threshold. Treatment is 

permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. Results could include creating more 

grass forage for elk, benefitting survival of individuals. However, treated areas would not be 

rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious 

weeds and a lack of cover, reducing habitat quality for elk. The abundance of opportunity to 

increase herbaceous production should make elk less reliant on winter feedgrounds; however, 

post-treatment management could reduce these benefits.

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Elk 

225
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands also 

creates more foraging habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on private, State, and BLM-administered 

land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from 

recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management 

in elk habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. 

(2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Elk Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels, then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat, which 

is also usually elk winter and transition habitat. Range conservation measures in Alternative D 

apply only to priority or priority core habitat, which is <10 percent and <1 percent, respectively, 

of elk sagebrush habitat on the BT. Therefore, sagebrush habitat quality could be reduced on the 

majority of elk habitat not addressed by conservation measures. Likewise, oil, gas, and 

geothermal development can be permitted with stipulations on >300,000 acres of GRSG priority

and general habitat subject only to a 9 percent disturbance limit in priority core habitat. While 

this alternative will maintain some habitat quantity and improve some habitat quality for elk, the 

benefits would be small in relation to the amount of habitat available to elk across the BT, 

>3,000,000 acres. This alternative will allow substantial loss or degradation of elk habitat 

compared to Alternatives B, C, and E. 

Effects on Elk Population Trend

The elk population trend on the BT is slowly declining as a result of harvest strategies directed at 

reducing the population to meet State objectives. The population trend is not expected to change 

substantially as a result of improvements across <1 percent of sagebrush habitat across the BT.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. However, this alternative includes a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat will allow some additional shrub treatments.

Conversion to grass forage with fuels treatments would benefit elk. However, limited 

conservation in the other four resource areas could allow substantial changes in elk habitat 

quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the BT. Still, this alternative prevents 

more disturbance in these four areas than Alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the 

BT is stable to slightly declining due to harvest strategy. It appears that existing sagebrush 

226
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

habitat conditions with proposed conservation measures can sustain this population considering 

that 80 percent of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds (Forest Service 2009). This 

abundance of elk mimics the status of elk populations Statewide. Full use of Alternative D 

conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the elk population trend 

since elk occur across all habitats on the BT, the conservation measures are generally limited to 

priority core habitat and elk are supported on winter feedgrounds.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs (>100,000 acres). Similarly, secondary road 

construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs and both 

would be prohibited within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades would be prohibited 

in PHMA and SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would be limited to the 

minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA and 

SFAs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 on 

or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses would be allowed as 

long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA and SFAs. Conservation measures 

would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than Alternatives A and D but less 

restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, less 

displacement, and less disruption of wintering or parturition in sagebrush habitat compared to 

Alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some short-term impacts could occur. Some small amount of elk habitat in sagebrush could be 

lost, degraded, or disturbed due to the 5 percent allowance for sagebrush habitat lost in PHMA or 

SFAs. Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in designated 

transmission corridors, power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs, and 

some special uses. However, there would be 3,283 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush 

habitat. Small sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because sagebrush habitat could be 

exchanged to other ownership in limited situations. Overall, impacts on elk and sagebrush 

habitat, predominantly PHMA and SFAs, would be reduced compared to Alternatives A and D 

but would be greater than impacts under Alternatives B and C.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks and in other seasonal habitats. Most 

conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and associated range 

improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that contributes to rangeland 

227
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These measures would also maintain 

or improve sagebrush habitat quality for elk. There could be areas of improved habitat for 

foraging.

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands >200 acres. Potential adverse effects on

sagebrush habitat from this exception could include habitat loss or degradation, or fragmentation 

due to infrastructure development.

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in both PHMA, SFAs, 

and GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B provides more restrictions on 

livestock grazing in PHMA, none in SFAs and not as much within GHMA management areas.

Alternative C would apply to PHMA and, most often, to GHMA promoting sagebrush habitat 

quality more than other alternatives.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit and one 

facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs. Habitat disturbing activities that fit 

within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed to cause the least possible impact on GRSG 

habitat. Fluid mineral leases, as an example, would be closed on 3,262 acres of GRSG habitat on 

federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, 

stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when 

approving exploration and development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions 

for priority and GHMA management areas during breeding and winter concentration. All timing, 

distance, density, and disturbance restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and 

locatable mineral activities as well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments,

will be constructed to reduce the potential for West Nile virus.

Conservation measures inside PHMA, SFAs, and often GHMA, would provide benefits to elk on 

winter ranges by retaining habitat and reducing disturbance. The conservation measures for this 

alternative maintain or protect sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA management 

areas more than Alternatives A and D. For example, alternative A has no disturbance limit and 

Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance limit compared to 5 percent for this alternative.

Alternative D also allows three energy production locations per 640 acres and Alternative A has 

no limitation. Alternatives B and C are generally more restrictive or prohibitive to energy 

development than this alternative.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs, and most often, also in GH. Conservation measures would be 

more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush than Alternatives A and D considering a no 

228
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit for these Alternatives, respectively. There are 

more treatment opportunities than Alternatives B and C. Sagebrush treatment would be limited 

by Table 1 Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions, the 5 percent disturbance cap, and the standards 

and guidelines for Fire Management in this alternative to maintain sagebrush in PHMA, SFAs, 

and GHMA. There would be fewer opportunities to create more grass forage for wintering elk 

and less encouragement to make elk less reliant on winter feedgrounds.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Elk habitat includes the entire BT National Forest where vegetation management in timber and 

aspen stands create more foraging habitat. Elk habitat also occurs on private, State, and BLMadministered land adjacent to the BT National Forest. Activities occurring in the five resource 

areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these 

other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, 

or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and 

range management in elk habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed in greater detail 

Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Elk Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA. These 

habitats comprise >75 percent of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. This 

alternative will maintain and improve a substantial amount of elk winter and transition habitat 

quantity and quality across the BT more than other alternatives except Alternative C perhaps 

causing elk to be less reliant on winter feedgrounds. Still, the benefits would be small in relation 

to the >3,000,000 acres of elk habitat available across the BT.

Effects on Elk Population Trend

The elk population trend on the BT is slowly declining as a result of harvest strategies directed at 

reducing the population to meet State objectives. Improvements to >60 percent of winter and 

transition ranges might require additional harvest to continue decreasing the population toward 

the State management objective.

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent. This 5

percent disturbance allowance will allow some small loss of sagebrush habitat. This alternative 

also limits disturbing activities in PHMA, SFAs, and often, GHMA. In total, there are >270,000 

acres of PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA on the BT. There would be less loss or fragmentation of 

mature sagebrush habitat. Generally, other activities in GHMA and all activities in the remaining 

sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as 

existing direction allows. These activities could affect about 80 percent of the elk habitat on the 

BT. Overall, effects of the Proposed Plan Amendment would be less impacting to the elk forest229
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

wide population than Alternatives A and D. Impacts would be more pronounced than Alternative

C and they would be broadly comparable to Alternative B.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the elk population trend on the 

Forest is stable to slightly declining due to harvest strategy. It appears that existing sagebrush 

habitat conditions with proposed conservation measures can sustain this population considering 

that 80 percent of the elk on the BT also rely on winter feedgrounds (Forest Service 2009). This 

abundance of elk mimics the status of elk populations Statewide. Full use of the Proposed Plan 

Amendment conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the elk 

population trend since elk occur across all habitats on the BT, the conservation measures are 

usually limited to priority and GHMA, and SFAs, and elk are supported on winter feedgrounds. 

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Distribution

Mule deer is a MIS for the BT that overlaps with GRSG habitat on the BT. Mule deer are 

common throughout the western states.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Mule deer are habitat generalists that can thrive in habitats from sagebrush and grassland to 

alpine tundra. All of the BT is classified as some type of mule deer seasonal range.

Threats can include competition with livestock and elk, aspen decline, and habitat loss to housing 

and energy development on winter ranges (Forest Service 2009).

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat Trend

Mule deer annual harvest across Wyoming has averaged between 43,000 and 55,000 since 2002 

(WGFD 2011). Mule deer are abundant across the State, but populations are generally lower than 

30 years ago.

The BT includes five mule deer herds. The mule deer population trend for the five herd units as a 

whole has been approximately stable since 2001; however, the total population remains below 

the state population objective (Forest Service 2009a). The population on the BT mimics the 

Statewide situation that mule deer are abundant but less abundant than over a decade ago.

Mule deer was selected as a MIS for the BT as a harvest species reflecting socioeconomic status.

Mule deer use many habitat types; those overlapping with GRSG habitat are generally winter 

ranges comprised of sagebrush and aspen.

Livestock management and vegetation management on the BT can affect forage quality and 

quantity for mule deer. Retaining insufficient shrub, aspen, or herbaceous production can 

negatively affect the mule deer population trend. Rangeland management practices have 

improved considerably in the last 50 years and little sagebrush shrubland on the BT has been 

permanently lost.

230
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

On the other hand, some habitat conditions appear to be declining. Aspen regeneration has been 

reduced, particularly around elk feedgrounds. Aspen distribution and stand vigor has declined 

due to aging stands and related conifer encroachment. There is an overrepresentation of late-seral 

shrublands on the BT (Forest Service 2009), which limits nutritional quality to mule deer. In 

addition to greatly increased fire-return intervals, heavy browsing by native ungulates has 

contributed to this situation. The amount of winter range off the BT is declining due to energy 

development and housing development.

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are sustaining the mule deer 

population. Available population and habitat information suggests mule deer on the BT have a 

population trend that is generally stable, but reduced compared to previous decades. The lower,

stable population parallels the abundance of older, less productive, and heavily browsed 

shrublands.

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current BT National Forest system roads, transportation plan, 

or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new 

roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on 

recreation special uses. These activities would continue on 5,933 acres of PHMA and 324,243

acres of GHMA. There would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush habitat 

lost to road construction. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a 

greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to deer. Less restrictive recreation travel usually 

means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in deer habitat.

These can cause animal displacement, disruption of parturition, or reduced fitness in sagebrush 

habitat. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There would 

be 2,107 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat. Some deer habitat could be traded to 

other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic benefits in this 

area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be managed according to Forest 

Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, 

maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or degradation for deer.

Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds. Though most projects 

would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat or 

disturbance of deer.

231
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT.

Livestock grazing is permitted on 3,270 acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on the BT.

Potential effects on deer habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in cover, 

structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland 

habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include reduced fitness 

for winter survival. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management usually 

provide sufficient herbaceous forage for deer across the BT. For example, the BT LRMP 

indicates that GRSG species’ needs will be addressed in allotment management plans and range 

improvements, management activities, and trailing will be coordinated with and designed to help 

meet the needs of GRSG.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PHMAs would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The 

majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new 

leases. This alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 3,263

acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). There would 

be greater negative effects from related noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and 

anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance 

would cause deer to have a reduced ability to survive winters.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Much deer habitat in 

transition and winter range could be treated. There would be no disturbance limit for acres of 

sagebrush moved into an early successional stage by wildfires and prescribed fires. Impacts 

could include regenerating younger, more palatable shrub stands which benefit survival of 

individuals. Forest Service (2009a) indicates “the existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in 

late succession exceeds what would exist if the communities were in healthy, functioning 

conditions”. Results could benefit individual survival in the long-term. There could also be 

increasing nonnative or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative does recommend that any 

necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Deer habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands create more foraging habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on 

private, State, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

232
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

development, and range management in deer habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed 

at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Mule Deer Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels, then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat which is 

also mule deer habitat. While there is LRMP guidance to address GRSG habitat needs in 

allotment management plans, there is currently no other specific guidance in the BT LRMP for 

grazing relative to promoting quality GRSG habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal 

development can be permitted with stipulations on >300,000 acres of GRSG priority andgeneral 

habitat. Since these allowable opportunities have not been implemented, sagebrush habitat has 

remained largely intact as mule deer habitat.

Effects on Mule Deer Population Trend

The mule deer population trend on the BT is stable but reduced compared to several decades ago.

This stable population trend mimics the current lack of substantial change to sagebrush habitat 

across the BT. However, as mentioned, current LRMP guidance allows a substantial change to 

sagebrush habitat. This alternative provides the least amount of guidance to conserve sagebrush 

habitat for mule deer. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient habitat change to reduce 

the probability that the forest-wide population trend would remain stable.

Summary of Alternative A

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited so there is a potential for habitat 

alteration or loss and disturbance in this deer habitat. Limitations would be provided only by 

Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in sagebrush habitat.

Regenerating shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit deer in the long-term. However, 

limited conservation in the other four resource areas could allow substantial changes in deer 

habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the Forest.

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps generally with deer winter and transition range on the Forest. Substantial 

changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the BT is stable.

It appears that current sagebrush habitat conditions can sustain this population. This abundance 

of deer mimics the status of deer populations statewide. Full use of Alternative A conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the deer population trend since deer 

occur across all habitats on the BT and the conservation measures are limited in GRSG habitat.

233
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 3

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 5,933 acres of PHMA in Alternative B. All travel 

would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA

if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird 

Areas could be designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than 

Alternative A, retaining more habitat for deer across the BT. There would be less displacement, 

disruption of parturition, or reduced deer fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, these benefits 

would occur on <1 percent of Forest-wide deer habitat; so they would not be reflected in the 

population trend. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some deer habitat on the BT. 

There would be 5,955 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat. These conservation 

measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but 

less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity 

and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PHMA which also benefits deer. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA in favor of GRSG; therefore, in 

favor of mule deer sagebrush habitat quality. There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the BT in 

this alternative (Table A above). Many livestock infrastructure improvements could occur only if 

beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly 

grazed. The potential effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range 

improvements would be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides a few more 

restrictions that would protect deer habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for less than 5 percent of the 

land cover of the BT so any changes would be localized. There could be small pockets of 

improved sagebrush habitat quality and productive herbaceous foraging for deer.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile,

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only three known active leks and 

only 5,933 acres of on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the 

future for GRSG and, consequently, for deer. Energy and mineral development could still occur 

234
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves PHMA, 

and therefore, deer habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to Alternative C in PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration and recovery would be emphasized in PHMA. Prescribed burning in PHMA would be

avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent

disturbance limit. These measures would limit the regeneration of shrubs on PHMA. This habitat 

could not be improved for mule deer foraging over time. Still, this is <10 percent of the 

sagebrush habitat on the BT. Impacts on the mule deer population trend would be small to 

immeasurable.

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009a) indicates that “the 

existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Deer habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands create more foraging habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on 

private, State, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in deer habitat off the BT. However, anthropogenic 

disturbances >3 percent on all ownerships in PHMA would restrict more disturbance on federal 

lands. Cumulative effects are discussed in greater detail in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Mule Deer Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA. PHMA constitutes <5 percent

of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. While this alternative will maintain some 

habitat quantity and improve some habitat quality for mule deer, the benefits would be small in 

relation to the amount of habitat available to mule deer across the BT >3,000,000 acres.

Effects on Mule Deer Population Trend

The mule deer population trend on the BT is stable. The population trend is not expected to 

change substantially as a result of improvements across <10 percent of sagebrush winter and 

transition habitat across the BT.

235
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits disturbance in PHMA, which is <1 percent of the forest-wide deer habitat.

There could be benefits to individual deer, but these would likely be too small to affect the 

forest-wide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit 

regeneration of shrub stands. Generally, activities in GHMA and the remaining sagebrush habitat 

on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction 

allows. These activities affect almost all (>95 percent) sagebrush habitat on the Forest.

Therefore, overall impacts on the deer forest-wide population would be generally similar to 

Alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the 

BT National Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of deer mimics the 

status of deer populations Statewide. Full use of Alternative B conservation measures in GRSG 

habitat would have a small impact on the deer population trend since deer occur across all 

habitats on the BT and the conservation measures are generally limited to PHMA.

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to deer and their sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Conservation measures would generally be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA.

Therefore, these measures would benefit more than 300,000 more acres of deer habitat than other 

alternatives. New road construction is prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks, and it is 

avoided in priority and GHMA. Existing road management would be designed to maintain or 

improve both priority and GHMA. Camping and other non-motorized recreation would be 

seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These measures allow the least 

habitat loss and disturbance among alternatives. Habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced 

on +8 percent of the forest-wide deer habitat. There would be less disruption of wintering and 

parturition and improved chances of winter survival.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for deer sagebrush habitat. Priority and 

GHMA would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. This is >60 percent of 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of 

all designated habitat, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of mule deer transition and 

winter habitat.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are 5933 acres of PHMA across the BT National Forest in this alternative. The prohibition 

of livestock grazing in PHMA would retain the most herbaceous forage among Alternatives to 

236
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

support deer on transition and winter ranges. This result would provide the greatest opportunity 

among Alternatives for improved deer fitness. Still, PHMA is <1 percent of forest-wide deer 

habitat and benefits would occur to individuals and not be noticed across the population.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to deer and their habitat than other alternatives.

Many conservation measures would be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, these 

measures would benefit more than 300,000 more acres of mule deer sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Initial surface disturbance from oil, gas, and coal is 85,140 acres. No exceptions, 

waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will be considered within priority 

(5,933 acres) and GHMA (324,243 acres). Priority and would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. 

As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations would be accepted for parcels 

within priority or GHMA. Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in priority and 

GHMA to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to these habitats and 

they would be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in GRSG breeding, nesting, 

brood rearing, and winter habitats during their season of use by GRSG. All PHMA would be 

closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. PHMA would be closed to mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free use permits. Habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced on +8

percent of the forest-wide deer habitat. There could be noticeably reduced disruption on winter 

and transition ranges, possibly leading to improved winter survival. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA and GHMA. This would limit the 

regeneration of shrubs across >320,000 acres of sagebrush. This is >70 percent of the sagebrush 

habitat on the BT. This habitat could not be improved for deer foraging over the long-term.

Lack of sagebrush treatment would be detrimental to mule deer over the long-term. Additional 

information from forest-wide monitoring indicates that “the existing proportion of the big 

sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the communities were in healthy, 

functioning conditions” (Forest Service 2009). This alternative would perpetuate this condition.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Deer habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands create more foraging habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on 

private, State, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, 

degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in deer habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed 

at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

237
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on Mule Deer Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG priority and GHMA. These habitats 

comprise >75 percent of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. This alternative will 

maintain and protect deer winter and transition habitat quantity and quality across the BT 

National Forest more than other alternatives. However, the limitation on prescribed burning 

could have negative impacts over time.

Effects on Mule Deer Population Trend

The mule deer population trend on the BT is stable. Maintenance and protection of >75 percent

of the winter and transition range on the BT will increase the probability that the population 

trend will remain stable.

Summary of Alternative C

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in priority and GHMA which is >75 percent of the 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. There could be benefits to deer across much of this forest-wide 

habitat that could be observed in the forest-wide population trend compared to other alternatives.

However, the limit on sagebrush treatment limits opportunities to improve winter and transition 

range and improve chances for winter survival. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush 

habitat on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing 

direction allows.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the 

BT National Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of deer mimics the 

status of deer populations Statewide. Full use of Alternative C conservation measures in GRSG 

habitat could have a noticeable benefit to the deer population trend.

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 

9 percent disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does 

require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential 

changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very similar to but 

slightly less detrimental to deer than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the three known leks and any new leks on the BT. This is closer than the 

238
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except Alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect <1 percent of the forest-wide deer habitat. A few more deer could be disrupted or a little 

habitat lost.

There would be 5,955 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat. New ROWs and 

SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would be subject to the 

9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation than 

allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A. These same uses 

would be allowed in GHMA.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

Alternative D apply to GRSG priority core habitat. A few slight differences include that this 

alternative recommends considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in 

response to drought in priority core habitat. Since priority core habitat is <1 percent of forestwide sagebrush habitat, these conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the 

forest-wide mule deer population.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and a 3 percent disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not 

exist in Alternative A. As an example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 2 acres of GRSG 

habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Therefore, these measures 

would benefit 5,593 acres of deer sagebrush habitat. Energy and mineral development could still 

occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. The lack of conservation measures in 

sagebrush outside of priority core habitat could lead to increased disturbance, loss of habitat, 

degradation of habitat, and reduced winter survival.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Sagebrush treatment would follow 

WGFD Protocols for treating sagebrush to benefit GRSG; a tool to determine whether proposed 

treatment constitutes a “disturbance” contributing toward the 9 percent threshold. Also, treatment 

is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. Results should include regenerating 

shrub stands for mule deer, benefitting survival of individuals. However, treated areas would not 

be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the expansion of noxious 

weeds and reduce forage production.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

239
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Deer 

habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands creates 

more foraging habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on private, State, and BLM-administered land 

adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from 

recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management 

in deer habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. 

(2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Mule Deer Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels, then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG which is also 

mule deer winter and transition range. Range conservation measures in Alternative D apply only 

to priority or priority core habitat which is <1 percent of mule deer sagebrush habitat on the BT.

Therefore, sagebrush habitat quality could be reduced on the majority of mule deer sagebrush 

habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development can be permitted with stipulations on 

>300,000 acres of GRSG priority and generalhabitat subject only to a 9 percent disturbance limit 

in priority core habitat. This alternative will allow substantial loss or degradation of mule deer 

habitat compared to Alternatives B, C, and E.

Effects on Mule Deer Population Trend

The mule deer trend on the BT is stable. This population trend mimics the current lack of 

substantial change to sagebrush habitat across the BT. As mentioned, however, Alternative D 

allows substantial change to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient 

habitat change to reduce the probability that the forest-wide population trend would remain 

stable.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. However, this alternative includes a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat will allow some additional shrub treatments.

Conversion to early successional shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit deer forage 

quality and diversity. However, limited conservation in the other four resource areas could allow 

substantial changes in deer habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the 

BT. Still, this alternative prevents more disturbance in these four areas than Alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the 

BT is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed conservation 

240
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of deer mimics the status of deer 

populations Statewide. Full use of development opportunities in sagebrush areas not conserved 

by Alternative D would lead to a decline in sagebrush habitat which would reduce the probability 

that the forest-wide population trend would remain stable.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs (>100,000 acres). Similarly, secondary road 

construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs and both 

would be prohibited within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades would be prohibited 

in PHMA and SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would be limited to the 

minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA and 

SFAs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 on 

or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses would be allowed as 

long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA and SFAs. Conservation measures 

would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than Alternatives A and D, but less 

restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat loss or degradation, and less 

disruption of wintering or parturition in sagebrush habitat compared to Alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some short-term impacts could occur. Some small amount of mule deer sagebrush habitat could 

be lost, degraded, or disturbed due to the 5 percent allowance for sagebrush habitat lost in 

PHMA or SFAs. Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in 

designated transmission corridors, power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and 

SFAs, and some special uses. However, there would be 3,283 acres of ROW exclusion areas in 

sagebrush habitat. Small sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because sagebrush habitat 

could be exchanged to other ownership in limited situations. Overall, impacts on mule deer in 

sagebrush habitat, predominantly PHMA and SFAs, would be reduced compared to Alternatives 

A and D, but would be greater than impacts on sagebrush habitat in Alternatives B and C.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks and in other seasonal habitats. Most 

conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and associated range 

improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that contributes to rangeland 

health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These measures would also maintain 

or improve sagebrush habitat quality for mule deer. There could be areas of improved foraging 

for mule deer.

241
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands <200 acres. Potential adverse effects on

sagebrush habitat from this exception could include habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure 

development.

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and 

GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B provides more restrictions on livestock 

grazing in PHMA, none in SFAs, and not as much within GHMA. Alternative C would apply to 

PHMA and, most often, to GHMA promoting sagebrush habitat quality for mule deer more than 

other alternatives.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit and one 

facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs. Habitat disturbing activities that fit 

within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed to cause the least possible impact on GRSG 

habitat. Fluid mineral leases would be closed on 3,263 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface 

and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, stipulations for the 

protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and 

development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions for PHMA, SFAs, and GH

during GRSG breeding and winter concentration. All timing, distance, density, and disturbance 

restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and locatable mineral activities as 

well. Development activities such as dams and impoundments will be constructed to reduce the 

potential for West Nile virus.

Conservation measures in PHMA, SFAs, and often GHMA, would provide benefits to mule deer 

by retaining shrub forage and reducing disturbance. The conservation measures for this 

alternative maintain or protect sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA more than 

Alternatives A and D. For example, Alternative A has no disturbance limit and Alternative D 

has a 9 percent disturbance limit, compared to 5 percent for this alternative. Alternative D also 

allows three energy production locations per 640 acres and Alternative A has no limitation.

Alternatives B and C are generally more restrictive or prohibitive to energy development than 

this alternative.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs, and most often, also in GHMA. There is a 5 percent

disturbance limit for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush than Alternatives A 

and D considering a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit for these alternatives, 

respectively. There are more treatment opportunities than Alternatives B and C. Sagebrush 

242
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

treatment would be limited by Table 1 Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions, the 5 percent

disturbance cap, and the standards and guidelines for Fire Management in this alternative to 

maintain sagebrush in priority and GHMA. More mature sagebrush habitat would be maintained,

but regeneration of older, decadent stands would be more limited in the long-term. 

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Deer habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands 

creates more foraging habitat. Deer habitat also occurs on private, State, and BLM-administered 

land adjacent to the Forest. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from 

recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management 

in deer habitat off the BT. However, anthropogenic disturbances >5 percent on all ownerships in 

PHMA and SFAs would restrict more disturbance on federal lands. Cumulative effects are 

discussed in greater detail Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Mule Deer Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA, SFAs and often, GHMA. These 

habitats comprise >60 percent of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. This 

alternative will maintain and protect deer winter and transition habitat quantity and quality across 

the BT more than other alternatives except Alternative C. However, the limitation on prescribed 

burning in PHMA could have negative impacts over time. Still, overall benefits would be small 

in relation to the >3,000,000 acres of habitat available to mule deer across the BT.

Effects on Mule Deer Population Trend

The mule deer population trend on the BT is stable. Maintenance and protection of >60 percent

of the winter and transition range on the BT will increase the probability that the population 

trend will remain stable as long as significant changes do not occur in the remaining 40 percent

of sagebrush habitat on the BT.

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent and one

disturbance per 640 acres. This 5 percent disturbance allowance in PHMA and SFAs will cause 

some loss of sagebrush habitat for mule deer. This alternative also limits disturbing activities in 

PHMA and, often GHMA. In total, there are >330,000 acres of PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA on 

the BT National Forest. There would be less loss or fragmentation of mature sagebrush habitat 

for mule deer. Generally, other activities in GHMA and all activities in the remaining sagebrush 

habitat will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These 

activities could affect about 70 percent of the mule deer sagebrush habitat on the BT National 

Forest. Overall, effects of the Proposed Plan Amendment would be less impacting to the mule 

243
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

deer forest-wide population than Alternatives A and D. Impacts would be more pronounced than 

Alternatives B and C.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the deer population trend on the 

BT National Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of deer mimics the 

status of deer populations Statewide. Full use of the Proposed Plan Amendment conservation 

measures in PHMA, SFAs, and in some cases GHMA, would have a small but noticeable impact 

on the deer population trend since deer occur across all habitats on the BT and the conservation 

measures are limited to the described habitats.

Moose (Alces alces shiras)

Distribution

Moose is a MIS for the BT that overlaps with some GRSG habitat on the National Forest. Moose 

are common throughout northern states that include boreal forest.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Nearly all of the BT is classified as some type of moose seasonal range. Vegetation types used 

by moose on the BT include aspen, many conifer types, several mountain shrubland types, big 

sagebrush, meadows, herblands, and tall forbs. 

Some factors are documented by research show contributing to the decline in moose numbers 

include decline in habitat conditions, predation, human disturbance during winter, and disease 

(Forest Service 2009a). Typically habitat is the primary limiting factor of moose populations 

(Forest Service 2009a).

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat Trend

Annual moose harvest across Wyoming has declined consistently over the last 10 years. Harvest 

was 1,160 in 2002 but was as low as 460 in 2011 (WGDF 2011), indicating declining 

populations.

The BT includes five moose herds. The moose population for these herds has been trending 

downward since 1998, and the total population remains below State population objectives 

(Forest Service 2009a). The moose population trend on the Forest mimics statewide population 

declines. 

Moose was selected as a MIS for the BT as a harvest species reflecting socioeconomic status.

Moose use many habitat types; those overlapping with GRSG habitat are generally winter ranges 

comprised of sagebrush and aspen.

Some habitat conditions appear to be slowly declining. Aspen regeneration has been reduced, 

particularly around elk feedgrounds. Aspen distribution and stand vigor has declined due to 

aging stands and related conifer encroachment. Forest Service (2009a) suggests that lack of 

244
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

disturbance is affecting the quality of this moose habitat. Winter recreation activity and other 

human activity on and off the BT and loss of willow habitat off the BT appears to have shifted 

moose habitat use in many areas to a much greater reliance on conifer forestland (Forest Service

2009). The large overrepresentation of late-seral and old-age classes limits browse production.

In contrast, willow and other riparian communities have improved due to improvements in 

grazing management compared to historic times. Livestock management and vegetation 

management on the BT can affect forage quality and quantity for moose. Retaining sufficient 

shrub, aspen, or willow production can benefit the moose population trend.

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are contributing to the reduced 

moose population. Rangeland management practices have improved considerably in the last 50 

years. However, the lack of natural or prescribed disturbance has created a higher proportion of 

older age class shrub stands and a decline in aspen vigor than occurred historically (Forest 

Service 2009a).

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current BT National Forest system roads, transportation plan, 

or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new 

roads and upgrading of existing roads permitted. There are few restrictions on recreation special

uses. These activities would continue on 5,933 acres of PHMA and 324,243 acres of GHMA.

There would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush habitat lost to road 

construction. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a greater 

likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to moose. Less restrictive recreation travel usually 

means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in moose habitat.

These can cause animal displacement, disruption of parturition, or reduced fitness in sagebrush 

habitat. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There are

2,107 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat. Some moose habitat could be traded to 

other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic benefits in this 

area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be managed according to Forest 

Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, 

maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or degradation for moose.

Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds. Though most projects 

would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of habitat or 

disturbance of moose.

245
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT.

Livestock grazing is permitted on 3,270 acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on the BT.

Potential effects on moose habitat could include: site specific overgrazing; reduction in cover;

structure; diversity of residual vegetation from consumption; and degradation of rangeland 

habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include reduced fitness 

for winter survival. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management usually 

provide sufficient herbaceous forage and shrub cover and browse for moose across the BT. For 

example, the BT LRMP indicates that GRSG species’ needs will be addressed in allotment 

management plans and range improvements, management activities, and trailing will be 

coordinated with and designed to help meet the needs of GRSG. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The 

majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing including expansion of new 

leases. This alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. For example, fluid mineral leases would be closed on 3,263

acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). There would 

be greater negative effects from related noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and 

anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance 

could cause individual moose to have a reduced ability to survive winters.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. There would be no 

disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush moved into an early successional stage by wildfires and 

prescribed fires. Some moose habitat could be treated. Impacts could include regenerating 

younger, more palatable shrub stands and increasing herbaceous forage, benefitting survival of 

individuals. Forest Service (2009a) indicates “the existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in 

late succession exceeds what would exist if the communities were in healthy, functioning 

conditions”. Also, Forest Service (2009a) indicates that declining habitat conditions are a 

primary limiting factor for moose populations. Results from shrub treatment could benefit 

individual survival. There could also be increasing nonnative or exotic grasses or weeds. This 

alternative does recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Moose habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality moose habitat. Appropriate 

grazing management also provides important healthy willow and aspen stands for moose. Moose 

habitat also occurs on private, State, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities 

occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

246
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be 

additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, 

energy and mineral development, and range management in moose habitat off the BT.

Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 

for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Moose Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in: recreation and travel; lands and 

realty; range; energy and minerals; and fire and fuels then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat; more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat more disturbances in sagebrush habitat; and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat which is 

also moose habitat. While there is LRMP guidance to address GRSG habitat needs in allotment 

management plans, there is currently no other specific guidance in the BT LRMP for grazing 

relative to promoting quality GRSG habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development can 

be permitted with stipulations on >300,000 acres of GRSG habitat. Since these allowable 

opportunities have not been implemented, sagebrush habitat has remained largely intact as 

moose habitat.

Effects on Moose Population Trend

The moose population trend on the BT is slowly declining. This trend mimics Statewide moose 

population trends. As mentioned, current LRMP guidance allows a substantial change to 

sagebrush habitat. This alternative provides the least amount of guidance to conserve sagebrush 

habitat for moose. Therefore, this alternative would allow habitat change to slightly reduce the 

probability that the forest-wide declining population trend would slow or stabilize.

Summary of Alternative A

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited so there is a potential for habitat 

alteration or loss and disturbance in this moose habitat. Limitations would be provided only by 

Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in sagebrush habitat.

Regenerating shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit moose. However, limited 

conservation in the other four resource areas could allow substantial changes in moose habitat 

quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the BT.

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps with some spring/summer/fall moose habitat on the BT. In general, 

sagebrush shrubland is not a significant component of moose habitat. Substantial changes to 

sagebrush quantity have not occurred but the quality of more important moose habitats have 

declined (Forest Service 2009a). The moose population trend on the BT is declining, which 

mimics Statewide trends. Management of sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this decline.

Full use of Alternative A conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on 

individual moose, but not a population trend. Since moose occur across all habitats on the BT, 

247
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat and most sagebrush is not important moose 

habitat.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 3

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 5,933 acres of PHMA in Alternative B. All travel 

would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA

if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird 

Areas could be designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than 

Alternative A retaining more sagebrush habitat for moose across the BT. There would be less 

displacement or reduction of moose fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course these benefits would 

occur on <1 percent of Forest-wide moose habitat, therefore, they would not be noticed in the 

population. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some moose habitat on the BT. 

There would be 5,955 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat. These conservation 

measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but 

less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity 

and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PHMA which also benefits moose. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA in favor of GRSG. There are 

5,933 acres of PHMA across the BT in this alternative. Many livestock infrastructure 

improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting 

grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. These would benefit moose, especially in willow, 

other riparian, and aspen habitat. The potential effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation 

disturbance, and range improvements would be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative

B provides more restrictions that would protect moose habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for less 

than 0.1 percent of the land cover of the BT so any changes would be localized. There could be 

small areas of improvement in aspen, willow, riparian, and sagebrush for moose.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile,

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only four known active leks and only 

248
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

5,933 acres of PHMA on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the 

future for GRSG and, consequently, for moose. Energy and mineral development could still 

occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. Additionally, there would be a 3

percent disturbance limitation and a one disturbance/section limitation in PHMA. Fluid mineral 

leases would be closed on 8,722 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral 

leases (Appendix 1). This alternative better conserves PHMA, and therefore some moose habitat 

than Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to Alternative C in PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in PHMA. Prescribed burning in PHMA would 

be avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent

disturbance limit. These measures would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5,593 acres of 

PHMA. This habitat could not be improved for moose foraging. Still, this is only 1 percent of the 

sagebrush habitat on the BT. Benefits to the moose population would be immeasurable.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Moose habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality moose habitat. Appropriate 

grazing management also provides important healthy willow and aspen stands for moose. Moose 

habitat also occurs on private, State, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities 

occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be 

additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from: recreation and travel; ROWs granted;

energy and mineral development; and range management in moose habitat off the BT. These 

cumulative effects are discussed in greater detail in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 

for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Moose Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA. PHMA constitutes <2 percent

of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. While this alternative will maintain some 

habitat quantity and improve some habitat quality for moose, the benefits would be small in 

relation to the >3,000,000 acres of habitat available to moose across the BT.

Effects on Moose Population Trend

The moose population trend on the BT is slowly declining. The population trend is not expected 

to improve as a result of improvements across <2 percent of sagebrush habitat across the BT.

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits disturbance in PHMA which is <1 percent of the forest-wide moose 

habitat. There could be benefits to individual moose, but these would be too small to affect the 

249
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

forest-wide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will restrict 

regeneration of shrub stands in PHMA. Generally, activities in GHMA and the remaining 

sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as 

existing direction allows. These activities affect almost all (>98 percent) sagebrush habitat on the 

BT National Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on the moose forest-wide population would be 

similar to Alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush shrubland is 

not a significant component of moose habitat. The moose population trend on the BT is declining 

but appears to be related to the reduced quality of more important habitats and other factors 

(Forest Service 2009a). This population trend mimics Statewide trends. Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this decline. Full use of Alternative B conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual moose, but not population 

trend since moose occur across all habitats on the BT conservation measures are limited to 

GRSG habitat and most sagebrush is not important moose habitat.

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to moose and their sagebrush habitat than other 

alternatives. Conservation measures would generally be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA.

Therefore, these measures would benefit greater than 322,000 more acres of moose habitat than 

other alternatives. New road construction is prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks, 

and it is avoided in priority and GHMA. Existing road management would be designed to 

maintain or improve both priority and GHMA. Camping and other non-motorized recreation 

would be seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These measures allow the 

least habitat loss and disturbance among alternatives. Habitat loss and disturbance would be 

reduced on +8 percent of the forest-wide moose habitat. There would be less disruption in 

spring/summer/fall habitat and improved chances of winter survival for individuals.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for moose sagebrush habitat. Priority and 

GHMA would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. This is >60 percent of 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of 

all designated habitat limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the Forest Service units in this alternative. The 

prohibition of livestock grazing in PHMA would retain the most browse in willow communities 

and aspen and herbaceous forage to support moose on spring/summer/fall ranges. This result 

would provide the greatest opportunity among Alternatives for improved moose fitness. Still, 

250
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

PHMA is <1 percent of forest-wide moose habitat; benefits would occur to individuals and not 

be noticed across the population.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to moose and their habitat than other 

alternatives. Conservation measures would be applied to PGH in addition to PHMA. Therefore, 

these measures would benefit greater than 300,000 more acres of moose sagebrush habitat than 

other alternatives. Fluid mineral leases would be closed on 315,582 acres of GRSG habitat on 

federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). No exceptions, waivers, modifications 

to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will be considered within priority (5,933 acres) and 

GHMA (324,243 acres). Priority and GHMA would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. As 

existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations would be accepted for parcels 

within priority or GHMA. Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in priority and 

GHMA to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to these habitats and 

it would be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in GRSG breeding, nesting, 

brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of use by GRSG. All PHMA would be 

closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. PHMA would be closed to mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free use permits. Overall, habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced 

on +8 percent of the forest-wide moose habitat. There could be noticeably reduced disruption on 

spring/summer/fall ranges, possibly leading to improved winter survival of individuals. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA and GHMA. This would limit the 

regeneration of shrubs across >300,000 acres of sagebrush. This habitat could not be improved 

for moose foraging. This is >75 percent of the sagebrush habitat on the BT.

Lack of sagebrush treatment would be detrimental to moose over the long-term. Additional 

information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Moose habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality moose habitat. Appropriate 

grazing management also provides important healthy willow and aspen stands for moose. Moose 

habitat also occurs on private, State, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities 

occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be 

additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, 

251
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

energy and mineral development, and range management in moose habitat off the BT.

Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 

for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Moose Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG priority and GHMA. These habitats 

constitute >75 percent of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest. This 

alternative will maintain more habitat quantity and improve more habitat quality for moose 

compared to other alternatives. However, the limitation on prescribed burning could have 

negative impacts over time.

Effects on Moose Population Trend

The moose population trend on the BT is slowly declining. Maintenance and protection of >75

percent of the winter and transition range on the BT will slightly increase the probability that the 

population trend improve if other conditions also improve.

Summary of Alternative C

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in priority and GHMA which is >75 percent of the 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. There could be benefits to individual moose. On the other hand, 

limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit regeneration of shrub stands. Generally, activities in 

the remaining sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or 

could expand as existing direction allows.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush shrubland is 

not a significant component of moose habitat. The moose population trend on the BT National 

Forest is declining, but it appears to be related to the reduced quality of more important habitats 

and other factors (Forest Service 2009a). The moose population trend on the BT National Forest

mimics Statewide trends. Management of sagebrush habitat is not likely to substantially alter this 

trend. Full use of Alternative C conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small 

impact on individual moose, but limited benefit to the population trend. Since moose occur 

across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat and most 

sagebrush is not important moose habitat.

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 

9 percent disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does 

require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential 

252
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very similar to, but 

slightly less detrimental to moose than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA and connectivity habitat will be allowed >

0.25 miles from the four known leks and any new leks on the BT. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except Alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect <1 percent of the forest-wide moose habitat. A few more moose could be disrupted or a 

little habitat lost.

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

These same uses would be allowed in GHMA.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. Many conservation measures for 

Alternative D apply to priority core habitat. A few slight differences include that this alternative 

recommends considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in response to 

drought in priority core habitat. Since priority core habitat is 1 percent of forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat, these conservation measures would have a very small benefit to individual moose.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and a three disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not 

exist in Alternative A. Therefore, these measures would benefit 5,593 acres of moose sagebrush 

habitat. Energy and mineral development could still occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of 

sagebrush habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 2 acres of GRSG 

habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). This alternative better 

conserves priority core habitat and, therefore, moose habitat than Alternative A.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Sagebrush treatment would follow 

WGFD Protocols for treating sagebrush to benefit GRSG; a tool to determine whether proposed 

treatment constitutes a “disturbance” contributing toward the 9 percent threshold. Also, treatment 

is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. Impacts could include regenerating 

shrub stands for moose somewhat benefitting survival of individuals. However, treated areas 

would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the expansion of 

noxious weeds and a lack of herbaceous forage production.

253
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Moose 

habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can 

create more quality moose habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides important 

healthy willow and aspen stands for moose. Moose habitat also occurs on private, State, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also 

occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, 

especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or 

disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and 

range management in moose habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater 

length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Moose Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in: recreation and travel; lands and 

realty; range; energy and minerals; and fire and fuels then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat which is 

also moose habitat. While there is LRMP guidance to address GRSG habitat needs in allotment 

management plans, there is currently no other specific guidance in the BT LRMP for grazing 

relative to promoting quality GRSG habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development can 

be permitted with stipulations on >300,000 acres of GRSG habitat. Since these allowable 

opportunities have not been implemented, sagebrush habitat has remained largely intact as a 

small portion of forest-wide moose habitat.

Effects on Moose Population Trend

The moose population trend on the BT is slowly declining. This trend mimics statewide moose 

population trends. As mentioned, however, Alternative D allows substantial change to sagebrush 

habitat. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient habitat change to slightly reduce the 

probability that the forest-wide declining population trend would slow or stabilize.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. However, this alternative includes a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat will allow some additional shrub treatments.

Conversion to early successional shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit moose forage 

quality and diversity. However, limited conservation in the other four resource areas could allow 

substantial changes in moose habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the 

BT. Still, this alternative prevents more disturbances in these four areas than Alternative A.

254
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush shrubland is 

not a significant component of moose habitat. The moose population trend on the BT is 

declining, but it appears to be related to the reduced quality of more important habitats and other 

factors (Forest Service 2009). The population decline mimics Statewide trends. Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to substantially alter this trend. Full use of Alternative D 

conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual moose, but 

limited benefit to the population trend. Since moose occur across all habitats on the BT, 

conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat and most sagebrush is not important moose 

habitat.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs. These habitats are >97,000 acres. Similarly, 

secondary road construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and 

SFAs and both would be prohibited within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades 

would be prohibited in PHMA and SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would 

be limited to the minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on sagebrush 

lost in PHMA and SFAs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from 

March 1 – May 15 on or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses 

would be allowed as long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than 

Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat 

loss or degradation and less disruption during spring/summer/fall compared to Alternatives A 

and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some short-term impacts could occur. A small amount of moose habitat in sagebrush could be 

lost, degraded, or disturbed due to the 5 percent allowance for sagebrush habitat lost in PHMA or 

SFAs. The Proposed Plan Amendment includes >100,000 acres as PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in designated transmission 

corridors; power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs; and some special 

uses. There would be 3,283 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG sagebrush habitat

(Appendix 1). Small sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because sagebrush habitat could 

be exchanged to other ownership in limited situations. Overall, impacts on moose and sagebrush 

habitat would be reduced compared to Alternatives A and D and they would be greater than 

impacts on sagebrush habitat in Alternative C. This alternative would retain about 90,000 acres 

255
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

of sagebrush habitat with the 5 percent disturbance limit compared to 5,755 acres of PHMA

retained in Alternative B with a 3 percent disturbance limit.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks (four known leks) and in other seasonal 

habitats. Most conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and 

associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that 

contributes to rangeland health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These 

measures would also maintain or improve habitat quality for moose especially where willow or 

aspen are inclusions within sagebrush. There could be more small areas of improvement in 

aspen, willow, riparian, and sagebrush for moose.

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands >200 acres. Potential adverse effects on

sagebrush habitat from this exception could include habitat loss or degradation, or fragmentation 

due to infrastructure development.

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in PHMA and SFAs 

(>97,000 acres), and GHMA (>170,000 acres) more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B 

provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA (5,933 acres); none in SFAs; and not as 

much within GHMA (324,243 acres). Alternative C would apply to 330,176 acres of combined 

PHMA and, most often, to GHMA promoting sagebrush habitat quality more than other 

alternatives.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit and one 

facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs (>100,000 acres). Habitat disturbing 

activities that fit within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed to cause the least possible 

impact on GRSG habitat. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 3,262 acres of GRSG habitat 

on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, 

stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when 

approving exploration and development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions 

for PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA during GRSG breeding and winter concentration. All timing, 

distance, density, and disturbance restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and 

locatable mineral activities as well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments,

will be constructed to reduce the potential for West Nile virus.

Conservation measures inside PHMA, SFAs, and often, GHMA (>330,000 combined acres) 

would provide benefits to moose by retaining aspen and willow inclusions within sagebrush 

stands and reducing disturbance. The conservation measures for this alternative maintain or 

256
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

protect sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. For 

example, Alternative A has no disturbance limit and Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance 

limit compared to 5 percent for this alternative. Alternative D also allows three energy

production locations per 640 acres and Alternative A has no limitation. Alternative B is often 

more restrictive but covers fewer acres of sagebrush. Alternative C is generally more restrictive 

or prohibitive to energy development than this alternative.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs, and most often, also in GHMA. There is a 5 percent

disturbance limit for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs (>100,000 acres).

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush than Alternatives A 

and D considering a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit for these alternatives, 

respectively. There are more treatment opportunities than Alternatives B and C. Sagebrush 

treatment would be limited by Table 1 Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions, the 5 percent

disturbance cap, and the standards and guidelines for Fire Management in this alternative to 

maintain sagebrush in in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Moose habitat includes the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands 

can create more quality moose habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides important 

healthy willow and aspen stands for moose. Moose habitat also occurs on private, State, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also 

occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, 

especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or 

disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and 

range management in moose habitat off the BT. However, anthropogenic disturbances >5 percent

on all ownerships in PHMA and SFAs would restrict more disturbance on federal lands.

Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 

for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Moose Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes conservation of GRSG PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA. These habitats 

constitute >75 percent of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. This alternative will 

maintain more habitat quantity and improve more habitat quality for moose compared to other 

alternatives except Alternative C. However, the limitation on prescribed burning could have 

negative impacts over time.

257
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on Moose Population Trend

The moose population trend on the BT is slowly declining. Maintenance and protection of >75

percent of the winter and transition range on the BT will increase the probability that the 

population trend will improve if other conditions also improve on the remainder of moose 

habitat.

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent and one

disturbance per 640 acres. This 5 percent disturbance allowance will enable some limited shrub 

treatments. This alternative also limits disturbing activities in PHMA and SFAs, and often, 

GHMA. In total, there are >330,000 acres of PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA on the BT in the

Proposed Plan Amendment. There would be less loss or fragmentation of mature sagebrush 

habitat for moose forest-wide. Other activities in GHMA and all activities in the remaining 

sagebrush habitat will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows.

These activities could affect about 80 percent of the moose habitat on the BT. Overall, effects 

would be less impacting to the moose forest-wide population than Alternatives A and D. Impacts 

would be more pronounced than alternative C. Alternative B includes greater habitat protection 

in many cases but addresses a smaller area.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush shrubland is 

not a significant component of moose habitat. The moose population trend on the BT National 

Forest is declining, but it appears to be related to the reduced quality of more important habitats 

and other factors (Forest Service 2009). The population decline mimics statewide trends.

Management of sagebrush habitat is not likely to substantially alter this trend. Full use of the

Proposed Plan Amendment conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact 

on individual moose, but a limited benefit to the population trend. Since moose occur across all 

habitats on the BT, conservation measures are usually limited to PHMA and SFAs and sagebrush 

is often not important moose habitat.

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana)

Distribution

Pronghorn antelope is a MIS for the BT that overlaps with GRSG habitat on the National Forest.

Pronghorn are common throughout the western states where sagebrush shrublands occur. 

Habitat Associations and Threats

Pronghorn antelope use sagebrush and grassland habitats in Wyoming and only a small portion 

of the lower elevation habitat on the BT is considered pronghorn antelope habitat on both sides 

of the Green River basin and into the Gros Ventre River drainage (Forest Service 2009a). They 

also use riparian and other meadows within the sagebrush/grassland matrix as well as more 

limited use of short-stature mountain shrublands, open conifer forestland, and open aspen stands 

where there is high visibility.

258
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Threats include loss of habitat to energy development and the contraction of obstacles 

constructed within migration corridors. Intensive development in the Jonah, Pinedale Anticline, 

and proposed expansion to the south of these areas in the Normally Pressurized Lance project 

area could potentially remove large areas from being useable by pronghorn (WGFD 2010).

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat

Annual Statewide pronghorn harvest has steadily increased over the last 10 years (WGFD 2011) 

reflecting more liberal harvest strategies aimed at maintaining or reducing animal numbers 

toward population objectives and habitat capability. Harvest was 30,260 in 2002 and has risen to 

55,525 in 2011.

The BT includes portions of two pronghorn herds. The population trend for these two herds has 

generally been stable and is near the State population objective (Forest Service 2009a, 2009b).

The BT population trend mimics the abundance of pronghorn Statewide. 

Pronghorn were selected as a MIS for the BT as a harvest species reflecting socioeconomic 

status. Pronghorn rely on sagebrush shrublands. These overlap with GRSG habitat.

Livestock and vegetation management on the BT can affect forage quality and quantity for 

pronghorn. Retaining insufficient shrub or herbaceous production can negatively affect the 

pronghorn population trend. Rangeland management practices have improved considerably in 

the last 50 years and little sagebrush shrubland on the BT has been permanently lost.

Some habitat conditions appear to be declining. There is an overrepresentation of late-seral 

shrublands on the BT (Forest Service 2009) which limits nutritional quality to pronghorn. In 

addition to greatly increased fire-return intervals, heavy browsing by native ungulates has 

contributed to this. The amount of habitat off the BT is declining due to energy development and 

housing development.

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that existing habitat conditions are sustaining the pronghorn 

population. Available population and habitat information suggests pronghorn on the BT have a 

population trend that is generally stable.

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current BT National Forest system roads, transportation plan, 

or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new 

roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on 

recreation special uses. These activities would continue on 5,933 acres of PHMA and 324,243

acres of GHMA and there would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush habitat 

259
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

lost to road construction. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a 

greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to pronghorn. Less restrictive recreation travel 

usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in pronghorn 

habitat. These can cause animal displacement or reduced fitness for parturition or wintering in 

sagebrush habitat. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There would 

be 2,107 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat. Some pronghorn habitat could be 

traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic benefits 

in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be managed according to 

Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, 

maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or degradation for 

pronghorn. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds. Though 

most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation 

of habitat or disturbance of pronghorn.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT.

Livestock grazing is permitted on 3,270 acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on the BT.

Potential effects on pronghorn habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in cover, 

structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland 

habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include reduced fitness 

for parturition or winter survival. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management 

usually provide sufficient herbaceous and browse forage for pronghorn across the BT. For 

example, the BT LRMP indicates that GRSG species’ needs will be addressed in allotment 

management plans and range improvements, management activities, and trailing will be 

coordinated and designed to help meet the needs of GRSG.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The 

majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing including expansion of new 

leases. This alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 3,263

acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). There would 

be greater negative effects from related noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and 

anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance 

could cause pronghorn to have reduced ability to survive winters and reduced reproductive 

abilities.

260
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Much pronghorn habitat 

could be treated. There would be no disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush moved into an early 

successional stage by wildfires and prescribed fires. Impacts could include regenerating younger, 

more palatable shrub stands, benefitting survival of individuals. Forest Service (2009a) indicates 

“the existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if 

the communities were in healthy, functioning conditions”. Results could benefit individual 

survival. There could also be increasing nonnative or exotic grasses or weeds. This alternative 

does recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Pronghorn habitat includes all sagebrush on the BT, more 

than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat also occurs on private, State, and BLM-administered land 

adjacent to the BT National Forest. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on 

these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from 

recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management 

in pronghorn habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et 

al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Pronghorn Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels then the combined impact would be a trend toward 

more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated habitat, 

more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative plants.

For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat. While there is 

LRMP guidance to address GRSG habitat needs in allotment management plans, there is 

currently no other specific guidance in the BT LRMP for grazing relative to promoting quality 

GRSG habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development can be permitted with 

stipulations on >300,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. Since these allowable opportunities have not 

been implemented, sagebrush habitat has remained largely intact.

Effects on Pronghorn Population Trend

The pronghorn population trend on the BT is stable. This stable population trend mimics the 

current lack of substantial change to sagebrush habitat across the BT. As mentioned, current 

LRMP guidance allows a substantial change to sagebrush habitat. This alternative provides the 

least amount of guidance to conserve sagebrush habitat for pronghorn. Therefore, this alternative 

would allow sufficient habitat change to reduce the probability that the forest-wide population 

trend would remain stable.

261
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Summary of Alternative A

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited so there is a potential for habitat 

alteration or loss and disturbance in this pronghorn habitat. Limitations would be provided only 

by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in sagebrush habitat.

Regenerating shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit pronghorn in the long-term.

However, limited conservation in the other four resource areas could allow substantial changes in 

pronghorn habitat quantity, quality, and ownership in sagebrush habitat on the BT National 

Forest.

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps with pronghorn habitat on the BT National Forest. Substantial changes to 

sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend on the BT National 

Forest is stable. It appears that current sagebrush habitat conditions can sustain this population.

This abundance of pronghorn mimics the status of pronghorn populations Statewide. Full use of 

Alternative A development opportunities in sagebrush would lead to a decline in sagebrush 

habitat which could cause a decline in the BT National Forest pronghorn population trend.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 3

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 5,933 acres of PHMA in Alternative B. All travel 

would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA

if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird 

Areas could be designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than 

Alternative A retaining more habitat for pronghorn across the BT. There would be less 

displacement, disruption, or reduced pronghorn fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, these 

benefits would occur on <1 percent of Forest-wide pronghorn habitat; so they would not be 

reflected in the population trend. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some pronghorn habitat on the 

BT. There would be 5,955 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat. These 

conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, 

D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize 

connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PHMA which also benefits pronghorn. 

262
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA in favor of GRSG; therefore, 

favor pronghorn sagebrush habitat quality. There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the BT in this 

alternative. Many livestock infrastructure improvements could occur only if beneficial to upland 

or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly grazed. The potential 

effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and range improvements would be 

similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides more restrictions that would protect 

pronghorn habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for only 1 percent of the sagebrush cover on the BT, 

so any changes would be localized. There could be small improved areas of productive 

herbaceous and browse foraging for pronghorn.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile,

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only four known active leks and only 

5,933 acres of PHMA on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the 

future for GRSG and, consequently, for pronghorn. Energy and mineral development could still 

occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat.

Additionally, there would be a 3 percent disturbance limitation and a one disturbance/section 

limitation in PHMA. Fluid mineral leasing would be reduced to 8,722 acres compared to 

Alternative A (Appendix 1). This alternative better conserves the 5,933 acres of PHMA and,

therefore, pronghorn habitat than Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to Alternative C in 

PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in PHMA. Prescribed burning in PHMA would 

be avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent

disturbance limit. These measures would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5,933 acres of 

PHMA. This habitat could not be improved for pronghorn foraging. Still, this is only 1 percent of 

the sagebrush habitat on the BT. Impacts on the pronghorn population would be small to 

immeasurable.

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009) indicates that “the 

existing proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Pronghorn habitat includes all sagebrush on the BT, more 

than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land 

263
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range 

management in pronghorn habitat off the BT. However, anthropogenic disturbances >3 percent

on all ownerships in PHMA would restrict more disturbance on federal lands. Cumulative effects 

are discussed in greater detail in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.

Effects on Pronghorn Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA. PHMA constitutes <2 percent

of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. While this alternative will maintain some 

habitat quantity and improve some habitat quality for pronghorn, the benefits would be small in 

relation to the amount of habitat available across the BT.

Effects on Pronghorn Population Trend

The pronghorn population trend on the BT is stable. The population trend is not expected to 

change substantially as a result of improvements across <2 percent of sagebrush habitat across 

the BT.

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits disturbance in PHMA which is <2 percent of the forest-wide pronghorn 

habitat. There could be benefits to individuals, but these would likely be too small to affect the 

forest-wide population trend. Generally, activities in GHMA and the remaining sagebrush habitat 

on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction 

allows. These activities affect almost all (>95 percent) sagebrush habitat on the BT National 

Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on the forest-wide population would be generally similar to 

Alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend 

on the BT is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This abundance of pronghorn mimics the 

status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of Alternative B conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on the pronghorn population trend since pronghorn 

occur across all sagebrush on the BT and the conservation measures are generally limited to 

PHMA.

264
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to pronghorn and their sagebrush habitat than 

other alternatives. Conservation measures would be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA.

Therefore, these measures would benefit more than 300,000 more acres of pronghorn habitat 

than other alternatives. New road construction is prohibited within 4 miles of active GRSG leks, 

and avoided in priority and GHMA. Existing road management would be designed to maintain or 

improve both priority and GHMA. Camping and other non-motorized recreation would be 

seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These measures allow the least 

habitat loss and disturbance among alternatives. Habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced 

on >75 percent of the forest-wide pronghorn habitat. There would be less disruption of wintering 

and parturition and improved chances of winter survival.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for pronghorn sagebrush habitat. Priority 

and GHMA would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. This is much of the 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. Alternative C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of 

GRSG habitat, limiting the possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the BT in this alternative. The prohibition of livestock 

grazing in PHMA would retain the most herbaceous forage to support pronghorn. This result 

would provide the greatest opportunity among alternatives for improved pronghorn fitness. Still, 

PHMA is <1 percent of forest-wide pronghorn habitat and benefits would occur to individuals 

and not be reflected in the population trend.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to pronghorn and their habitat than other 

alternatives. Many conservation measures would be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA.

Therefore, these measures would benefit greater than 260,000 more acres of pronghorn 

sagebrush habitat than other alternatives. For example, fluid mineral leases would be closed on 

315,583 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). No 

exceptions, waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will be considered 

within priority (5,933 acres) and GHMA (324,243 acres). Priority and GHMA would be closed 

to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations would 

be accepted for parcels within priority or GHMA. Geophysical exploration would only be 

allowed in priority and GHMA to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and 

adjacent to these habitats and it would be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities 

in GRSG breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of use by 

265
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

GRSG. All PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. PHMA would be 

closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits. Overall, habitat loss and 

disturbance would be reduced on much of the forest-wide pronghorn habitat. There could be 

noticeably reduced disruption possibly leading to improved winter survival or reproductive 

ability. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA and GHMA promoting the 

conservation of mature sagebrush habitat. Sagebrush canopy cover would generally not be 

reduced to less than 15 percent. Prescribed burning in priority and GHMA would be avoided in 

<12 inch precipitation zone. These measures would limit the regeneration of shrubs across 

>300,000 acres of sagebrush.

Lack of sagebrush treatment would be detrimental to pronghorn over the long-term. Additional 

information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009) indicates that “the existing 

proportion of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the 

communities were in healthy, functioning conditions.” This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Pronghorn habitat includes all sagebrush on the BT, more 

than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land 

adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these 

ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially 

BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance 

from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range 

management in pronghorn habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length 

in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Pronghorn Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG priority and GHMA. These habitats 

comprise much of the 430,870 acres of pronghorn habitat on the BT. This alternative will 

maintain and improve habitat quantity and quality across the BT for Brewer’s sparrow more than 

other alternatives. However, the limitation on prescribed burning could have negative impacts 

over time.

Effects on Pronghorn Population Trend

The population trend on the BT National Forest is stable. Maintenance and protection of much of 

the sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest will increase the probability that the population 

trend will remain stable.

266
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Summary of Alternative C

This alternative limits loss, fragmentation, and disturbance in priority and GHMA. There could 

be benefits to pronghorn across much of this forest-wide habitat that could be observed in the 

forest-wide population trend compared to other alternatives. However, the limit on sagebrush 

treatment limits opportunities to improve habitat conditions over time. Generally, activities in the 

remaining sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest will occur as they do currently or could 

expand as existing direction allows.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend 

on the BT National Forest is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with 

proposed conservation measures can sustain this population. This abundance of pronghorn 

mimics the status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of Alternative C conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat could have a noticeable effect on the pronghorn population trend 

since measures would affect much of the BT’s sagebrush habitat.

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 

9 percent disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and does 

require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential 

changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very similar to but 

slightly less detrimental to pronghorn than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA and connectivity habitat will be allowed > 

0.25 miles from the four known leks and any new leks on the BT. This is closer than the 

disturbance allowed under the other alternatives except Alternative A. This disturbance would 

affect <1 percent of the forest-wide pronghorn habitat. A few more pronghorn could be disrupted 

or a little habitat lost.

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

These same uses would be allowed in GHMA.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

267
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative D apply to priority core habitat. A few slight differences include this alternative

recommends considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in response to 

drought in priority core habitat. Since priority core habitat is 1 percent of forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat, these conservation measures would have a very small benefit to the forest-wide 

population.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and a three disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not 

exist in Alternative A. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 2 acres of federal surface and 

federal mineral leases compared to Alternative A (Appendix 1). Conservation measures would 

benefit 5,593 acres of pronghorn sagebrush habitat. Energy and mineral development could still 

occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better conserves 

PHMA and, therefore, pronghorn habitat than Alternative A.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Sagebrush treatment would follow 

WGFD Protocols for treating sagebrush to benefit GRSG; a tool to determine whether proposed 

treatment constitutes a “disturbance” contributing toward the 9 percent threshold. Treatment is 

permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range. Impacts could include regenerating 

shrub stands for pronghorn, benefitting survival of individuals over the long-term. However, 

treated areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the 

expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover. These limited conservation measures in PHMA

and the lack of measures in the remainder of sagebrush habitat would have detrimental impacts 

on pronghorn compared to Alternatives B, C, and E.

Cumulative Effects for 5 Resource Areas

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Pronghorn habitat includes all sagebrush on the BT, more than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat 

also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring 

in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation 

measures on these other lands, especially BLM. However, cumulatively there could be additional 

habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and 

mineral development, and range management in pronghorn habitat off the BT. Cumulative 

effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this 

GRSG amendment.

268
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on Pronghorn Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels then the combined impact would be a trend toward 

more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated habitat, 

more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative plants.

For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat. Range 

conservation measures in Alternative D apply only to priority or priority core habitat, which is 1

percent of pronghorn habitat on the BT. Therefore, sagebrush habitat quality could be reduced on 

the majority of pronghorn habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development can be 

permitted with stipulations on >300,000 acres of GRSG habitat subject only to a 9 percent

disturbance limit in priority core habitat. This alternative will allow substantial loss or 

degradation of pronghorn habitat compared to Alternatives B, C, and E.

Effects on Pronghorn Population Trend

The pronghorn population trend on the BT is stable. This population trend mimics the current 

lack of substantial change to sagebrush habitat across the BT. However, Alternative D allows a 

substantial change to sagebrush habitat. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient habitat 

change to reduce the probability that the forest-wide population trend would remain stable.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. However, this alternative includes a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat will allow some additional shrub treatments.

Conversion to early successional shrub stands with fuels treatments would benefit pronghorn 

forage quality and diversity over the long-term. However, limited conservation in the other four

resource areas could allow substantial changes in pronghorn habitat quantity, quality, and 

ownership in sagebrush habitat on the BT. Still, this alternative prevents more disturbance in 

these four areas than Alternative A.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend 

on the BT is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This abundance of pronghorn mimics the 

status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of development opportunities in sagebrush 

areas not conserved by Alternative D would lead to a decline in sagebrush habitat which would 

reduce the probability that the forest-wide population trend would remain stable.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs. These comprise >100,000 acres. Similarly, 

269
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

secondary road construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and 

SFAs and both would be prohibited within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades 

would be prohibited in PHMA and SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would 

be limited to the minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on sagebrush 

lost in PHMA and SFAs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from 

March 1 – May 15 on or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses 

would be allowed as long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than 

Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat 

loss or degradation and less disturbance in sagebrush habitat compared to Alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some short-term impacts could occur. Some small amount of pronghorn habitat could be lost, 

degraded, or disturbed due to the 5 percent allowance for sagebrush habitat lost in PHMA or 

SFAs. The Proposed Plan Amendment includes >97,000 acres as PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in designated transmission 

corridors, power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs, and some special 

uses. However, there would be 3,283 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat

(Appendix 1). Small sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because sagebrush habitat could 

be exchanged to other ownership in limited situations. Overall, impacts on pronghorn sagebrush 

habitat, predominantly PHMA and SFAs, would be reduced compared to Alternatives A and D 

and would be greater than impacts on sagebrush habitat in Alternative C. This alternative would 

retain about 90,000 acres of sagebrush habitat with the 5 percent disturbance limit compared to 

5,755 acres of PHMA retained in Alternative B with a 3 percent disturbance limit.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks (four known leks) and in other seasonal 

habitats. Most conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and 

associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that 

contributes to rangeland health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These 

measures would also maintain or improve sagebrush habitat quality for pronghorn. There could 

be areas of improved foraging for pronghorn.

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands <200 acres. Potential adverse effects on

sagebrush habitat from this exception could include habitat loss or degradation, or fragmentation 

due to infrastructure development.

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in PHMA and SFAs 

(>97,000 acres), and GHMA (>170,000 acres) more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B 

provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA, but not as much within GHMA (5,933 

270
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

acres), none in SFAs, and not as much within GHMA (324,243 acres). Alternative C would 

apply to 330,176 acres of combined PHMA and most often to GHMA.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit and one 

facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs (>100,000 acres). Habitat disturbing 

activities that fit within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed to cause the least possible 

impact on GRSG habitat. Fluid mineral leases would be closed on 3,262 acres of federal surface 

and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, stipulations for the 

protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when approving exploration and 

development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions for PHMA, SFAs, and 

GHMA during GRSG breeding and winter concentration. All timing, distance, density, and 

disturbance restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and locatable mineral 

activities as well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments, will be constructed 

to reduce the potential for West Nile virus.

Conservation measures in PHMA, SFAs, and often GHMA (>330,000 combined acres) would 

provide benefits to pronghorn by retaining shrub forage and reducing disturbance. The 

conservation measures for this alternative maintain or protect sagebrush habitat in in PHMA, 

SFAs, and GHMA more than Alternatives A and D. For example, Alternative A has no 

disturbance limit and Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance limit compared to 5 percent for 

this alternative. Alternative D also allows three energy production locations per 640 acres and 

Alternative A has no limitation. Alternative B is often more restrictive, but covers fewer acres of 

sagebrush. Alternative C is generally more restrictive or prohibitive to energy development than 

this alternative.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs, and most often, in GHMA. There is a 5 percent disturbance 

limit for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs (>100,000 acres).

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush than Alternatives A 

and D, considering a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit for these alternatives, 

respectively. There are more treatment opportunities than Alternatives B and C. Sagebrush 

treatment would be limited by Table 1 Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions, the 5 percent

disturbance cap, and the standards and guidelines for Fire Management in this alternative to 

maintain sagebrush in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA. More mature sagebrush habitat would be 

maintained, but regeneration of older, decadent stands would be more limited. 

271
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Pronghorn habitat includes all sagebrush on the BT, more than 430,000 acres. Pronghorn habitat 

also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT National Forest.

Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could 

be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, 

energy and mineral development, and range management in pronghorn habitat off the BT.

However, anthropogenic disturbances >5 percent on all ownerships in PHMA and SFAs would 

restrict more disturbance on federal lands. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in 

Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Pronghorn Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA, SFAs and often, GHMA. These 

habitats comprise much of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat, pronghorn habitat, on the BT.

This alternative will maintain and improve habitat quantity and quality across the BT for 

pronghorn more than other alternatives except Alternative C.

Effects on Pronghorn Population Trend 

The population trend on the BT is stable. The population trend could remain stable or increase 

with conservation measures on much of the sagebrush habitat if substantial habitat loss or 

degradation does not occur on the remaining portion of forest-wide habitat that will not benefit 

from the proposed conservation measures.

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent and one

disturbance per 640 acres. This 5 percent disturbance allowance will cause some loss of 

sagebrush habitat for pronghorn. This alternative also limits disturbing activities in PHMA and 

SFAs and often GHMA management areas. In total, there are >330,000 acres of combined 

PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA on the BT National Forest. There would be less loss or fragmentation 

of mature sagebrush habitat for pronghorn. Generally, other activities in GHMA management 

areas and all activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat will occur as they do currently or could 

expand as existing direction allows. These activities could affect a substantial amount of the 

pronghorn habitat on the BT National Forest. Overall, effects of the Proposed Plan Amendment

would be less impacting to the pronghorn forest-wide population than Alternatives A and D.

Impacts would be more pronounced than Alternative C. Alternative B includes greater habitat 

protection in many cases, but addresses a smaller area.

Substantial changes to sagebrush habitat have not occurred and the pronghorn population trend 

on the BT is stable. It appears that existing sagebrush habitat conditions with proposed 

conservation measures can sustain this population. This relative abundance of pronghorn mimics 

the status of pronghorn populations statewide. Full use of the Proposed Plan Amendment

272
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a noticeable effect on the pronghorn 

population trend since the conservation measures affect much of the available habitat.

Boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas)

Distribution

The boreal toad is a R2 and R4 Sensitive Species and a MIS for the BT. Boreal toads overlap 

with some GRSG habitat on the BT. Boreal toads occur from northern New Mexico to Alaska, 

including the Rocky Mountains and west to the west to the Pacific Coast. In Wyoming, its range 

is restricted to mountains and foothills and relatively moist conditions, ranging in elevation from 

about 6,500 to 12,000 feet (WGFD 2005).

Habitat Associations and Threats

Boreal toads are associated with a variety of habitats including: wetlands, forests, woodlands, 

sagebrush, meadows, and floodplains in the mountains and valleys. Usually they inhabit 

wetlands near: ponds, lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams. Breeding occurs in: ponds, slow 

streams, river backwater channels, and along lake edges. They require three main habitat 

components: 1) shallow wetlands for breeding, 2) terrestrial habitats with vegetative cover for 

foraging, and 3) burrows for winter hibernation (Loeffler 2001). Adults can move to drier 

terrestrial habitat after breeding. Boreal toads have a low reproductive output.

Threats to boreal toads include: chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis; acidification of 

wetlands; thinning of the ozone layer; timber harvesting that causes sedimentation; livestock 

grazing in and around riparian areas; pesticides and herbicides; and introduced species which 

prey on toads or create competition for resources or are vectors for pathogens (Keinath and 

McGee 2005). Any activity that alters mountain wetland habitats can affect boreal toad 

populations. The primary threat is considered to be chytrid fungus (Keinath and McGee 2005).

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat

Boreal toads were formerly widespread and common, but have declined dramatically in the last 

three decades in many portions of its extensive range in western North America (Carey 1993; 

Corn 1994; Keinath and McGee 2005). It is a species of concern in Wyoming. “Boreal toad 

populations appear to be in a state of severe decline.” (WGFD 2005).

Currently, boreal toads appear to be rare to uncommon on the BT. In 2005, five boreal toad 

breeding sites were selected as monitor sites based on information in Patla (2002). Three sites 

were located between the Buffalo and Jackson Ranger Districts, and two sites in the Big 

Piney/Pinedale Districts. In the first year of monitoring, evidence of breeding was only observed 

at one site (Buffalo Ranger District). The other sites were flooded out or somehow changed when 

the surveys took place. 

In 2006, the boreal toad sites were revisited and breeding toads were found only at the Blackrock 

site. Adults were observed, but not young, at the Pinedale sites due to the time of year the 

273
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

monitoring took place and, therefore, we were unable to confirm breeding. New boreal toad 

observations were made on the Greys River and Kemmerer Ranger Districts, but they were not 

observed at a time to indicate breeding. The scarcity of breeding sites on the BT mimics the state 

conclusion that populations appear to be in a state of decline.

Boreal toad was selected as a MIS for the BT to reflect the condition of wetlands. Boreal toad 

adults can also use upland shrublands after breeding that overlap with some GRSG habitat.

Across the BT, condition of riparian areas and wetlands is variable. A BT assessment concluded 

the risk to be “high trending toward moderate,” meaning that functionality is still reduced in 

many riparian areas but many riparian areas are fully functioning, especially those at higher 

elevations not associated with roads.

In addition, upland and riparian communities have improved due to improvements in grazing 

management compared to historic times. Livestock management and vegetation management on 

the BT can affect herbaceous cover for boreal toads. Retaining sufficient shrub and herbaceous 

cover in upland and riparian habitats can benefit the boreal toad population trend.

Forest-wide monitoring suggests that existing habitat conditions might be contributing to the 

uncommon occurrence of boreal toads on the BT. While improving, some riparian conditions are 

still functionally reduced. On the other hand, rangeland management practices have improved 

considerably in the last 50 years and upland habitat, which overlaps with GRSG habitat, has 

improved. The impact of chytrid fungus, a primary population threat (Keinath and McGee 

(2005), is unknown.

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current BT National Forest system roads, transportation plan, 

or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use and some new 

roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on 

recreation special uses. These activities would continue on 5,933 acres of PHMA and 324,243

acres of GHMA and there would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush habitat

lost to road construction. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a 

greater likelihood of habitat loss and disturbance to boreal toad. Less restrictive recreation travel 

usually means higher concentrations of human use adjacent to motorized routes and in boreal 

toad habitat. These can cause animal displacement, disrupt seasonal movement, or reduced 

individual fitness in sagebrush habitat. 

274
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There would 

be 2,107 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat. Some boreal toad habitat could be 

traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic benefits 

in this area. All Forest Service-administered lands would continue to be managed according to 

Forest Service policy and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, 

maintenance, and operation activities that may result in habitat loss or degradation for boreal 

toad. Other impacts may include new infestations of noxious or invasive weeds. Though most 

projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize impacts, there could be loss or degradation of 

habitat or disturbance of boreal toads.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT.

Livestock grazing is permitted on 3,270 acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on the BT.

Potential effects on boreal toad habitat could include: site specific overgrazing, reduction in 

cover, structure, and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of 

rangeland habitat due to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts could include 

reduced fitness for individuals. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management 

usually provide sufficient herbaceous and shrub cover for boreal toads across the BT. For 

example, the BT LRMP indicates that GRSG species’ needs will be addressed in allotment 

management plans and range improvements, management activities, and trailing will be 

coordinated with and designed to help meet the needs of GRSG.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The 

majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new 

leases. As such, this alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on only 

3,263 acres of GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). There 

would be greater negative effects from related noise, increased presence of roads/humans, and 

anthropogenic structures in an otherwise open landscape. Loss of habitat and greater disturbance 

could cause a few individual boreal toads to have a reduced fitness.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. There would be no 

disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush moved into an early successional stage by wildfires and 

prescribed fires. A small amount of adult toad habitat could be treated. The primary impact 

would be the loss of cover, making sites to dry to maintain body moisture or thermoregulate.

This sagebrush habitat would be unsuitable to boreal toads. Results from shrub treatment would 

be detrimental to individual survival. There could also be increasing nonnative or exotic grasses 

275
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

or weeds. This alternative does recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native 

plants.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Boreal toad habitat includes wetland and riparian and 

forested cover types where grazing management and vegetation management in timber and aspen 

stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing 

management provides important healthy willow and aspen stands for boreal toad. A small 

amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent

to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There 

are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. However, 

cumulatively there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation 

and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in boreal 

toad habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) 

and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Boreal Toad Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels then the combined impact would be a trend toward 

more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated habitat, 

more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative plants.

For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat. While there is 

LRMP guidance to address GRSG habitat needs in allotment management plans, there is 

currently no other specific guidance in the BT LRMP for grazing relative to promoting quality 

GRSG habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development limitations are small compared to 

other alternatives (Appendix 1). Since these allowable opportunities have not been implemented, 

sagebrush habitat has remained largely intact.

Effects on Boreal Toad Population Trend

The population trend on the BT is believed to be declining. This population trend mimics 

statewide trends. As mentioned, however, current LRMP guidance allows a substantial change to 

sagebrush habitat. This alternative provides the least amount of guidance to conserve sagebrush 

habitat that overlaps with boreal toad habitat. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient 

habitat change to slightly reduce the probability that the forest-wide population trend would slow 

or stabilize.

Summary of Alternative A

The overwhelming majority of boreal toad habitat does not occur in sagebrush. However, 

existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for small 

habitat alterations or loss and disturbance in adult boreal toad habitat. Limitations would be 

provided only by Forest Plan guidance, which generally allows substantial disturbance in 

276
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

sagebrush habitat. Regenerating shrub stands with fuels treatments would eliminate boreal toad 

habitat. Limited conservation in the other four resource areas could allow substantial changes in 

boreal toad habitat quantity and quality in the small amount of boreal toad sagebrush habitat.

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage disturbances in GRSG 

habitat which overlaps with some adult boreal toad habitat on the BT. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Substantial changes to sagebrush 

quantity have not occurred, but the quality of more important boreal toad habitats have declined 

(Forest Service 2009). Boreal toads across the BT are rare, which mimics population situation 

statewide. Management of sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this unless a new breeding 

site is found in sagebrush. Full use of Alternative A conservation measures in GRSG habitat 

could have a small impact on a few individual boreal toads, but not population trend since there 

is a small amount of overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 3

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 5,933 acres of PHMA in Alternative B. All travel 

would remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA

if there was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird 

Areas could be designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss and disturbance than 

Alternative A, retaining more sagebrush habitat for boreal toads across the BT. There would be 

less displacement or reduction of boreal toad fitness in sagebrush habitat. Of course, these 

benefits would occur on very little boreal toad habitat so they would not be noticed in the 

population. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some boreal toad habitat on the 

BT. There would be 5,955 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat (Appendix 1).

These conservation measures would be more protective than conservation measures in 

Alternatives A, D, and E, but less protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted 

effort to maximize connectivity and minimize fragmentation of GRSG PHMA which also 

benefits boreal toad. 

277
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA in favor of GRSG improved 

habitat quality; therefore, in favor of boreal toad habitat quality. There are 5,933 acres of PHMA

across the BT in this alternative. Many livestock infrastructure improvements could occur only if 

beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only lightly 

grazed. These would benefit boreal toad ensuring cover important for retaining moisture and 

thermoregulation. The potential effects due to livestock grazing, vegetation disturbance, and 

range improvements would be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B provides more 

restrictions that would protect boreal toad habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for less than 1 percent

of the land cover of the BT so any changes would be localized. There could be small areas of 

improvement in aspen, willow, riparian, and sagebrush for boreal toad. 

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile,

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only four known active leks and only 

5,933 acres of PHMA on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the 

future for GRSG and, consequently, for boreal toad. Energy and mineral development could still 

occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat.

Additionally, there would be a 3 percent disturbance limitation and a one disturbance/section 

limitation in PHMA. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 8,722 acres of GRSG habitat 

(Appendix 1). This alternative better conserves the 5,933 acres of PHMA, and therefore 

Brewer’s sparrow habitat, than Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to Alternative C in PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration and recovery would be emphasized in PHMA. Prescribed burning in PHMA would be 

avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent

disturbance limit. These measures would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5,593 acres of 

PHMA. This restriction would benefit retaining more boreal toad habitat. Still, this is only 1

percent of the sagebrush habitat on the BT. Impacts on the boreal toad population would be small 

to immeasurable.

Cumulative Effects for five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Boreal toad habitat includes wetland, riparian and 

forested cover types where grazing management and vegetation management in timber and aspen 

stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing 

management provides important healthy willow and aspen stands for boreal toad. A small 

amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent 

to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There 

are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

278
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, 

ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in boreal toad habitat 

off the BT. However, anthropogenic disturbances >3 percent on all ownerships in PHMA would 

restrict more disturbance on federal lands. Cumulative effects are discussed in greater detail in 

Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Boreal Toad Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA. PHMA constitutes <2 percent

of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. While this alternative will maintain some 

habitat quantity and improve some habitat quality for boreal toads, the benefits would be small 

since this habitat is a minor component of boreal toad habitat across the BT.

Effects on Boreal Toad Population Trend

The population trend on the BT is declining. The population trend is not expected to improve as 

a result of improvements across <2 percent of sagebrush habitat across the BT.

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits disturbance in PHMA, which is <2 percent of the forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat and a minor component of boreal toad habitat. There could be benefits to individual 

boreal toads, but these would be too small to affect the forest-wide population trend. On the other 

hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will prohibit regeneration of shrub stands, conserving cover 

for boreal toads. Generally, activities in GHMA and the remaining sagebrush habitat on the BT

National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows.

These activities affect almost all (98 percent) sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest.

Therefore, overall impacts on the boreal toad forest-wide population would be similar to 

Alternative A.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Boreal toads are rare on the BT

National Forest mimicking the condition throughout Wyoming. This scarcity is believed related 

primarily to chytrid fungus among other factors (Keinath and McGee 2005). Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this situation unless a new breeding site is found in 

sagebrush. Full use of Alternative B conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a small 

impact on a few individual boreal toads, but not population trend since there is a small amount of 

overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to boreal toads and their sagebrush habitat than 

other alternatives. Conservation measures would be applied to GHMA, more than 300,000 

279
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

additional acres in addition to PHMA. New road construction is prohibited within four miles of 

active GRSG leks, and avoided in priority and GHGHMA. Existing road management would be 

designed to maintain or improve both priority and GHGHMA. Camping and other nonmotorized recreation would be seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks.

These measures allow the least habitat loss and disturbance among alternatives. Habitat loss and 

disturbance would be reduced. There would be less disruption in adult habitat and improved 

fitness of some individuals.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for boreal toad sagebrush habitat.

Priority and GHMA would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. Alternative

C would encourage consolidation and acquisition of all designated habitat, limiting the 

possibilities for loss or degradation of habitat. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 5,933 acres of PH across the BT National Forest in this alternative. The prohibition of 

livestock grazing in PHMA would retain the most cover in this habitat to support adult boreal 

toads. This result would provide the greatest opportunity among alternatives for improved boreal 

toad fitness. Still, PHMA is <2 percent of forest-wide boreal toad habitat and benefits would 

occur to individuals and not be reflected in the population trend.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to boreal toads and their habitat than other 

alternatives. Many conservation measures would be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA.

Therefore, these measures would benefit more than 260,000 acres of GRSG habitat, some boreal 

toad habitat than other alternatives. Fluid mineral leases would be closed on 315,583 acres of 

GRSG habitat on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). No exceptions, 

waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs will be considered within PHMA

(5,933 acres) and GHMA. Priority and GHMA would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. As 

existing leases expire or are terminated, no new nominations would be accepted for parcels 

within priority or GHMA. Geophysical exploration would only be allowed in priority and 

GHMA to obtain exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to these habitats and 

would be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in GRSG breeding, nesting, 

brood rearing and winter habitats during their season of use by GRSG. All PHMA would be 

closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. PHMA would be closed to mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free use permits. Overall, habitat loss and disturbance would be reduced.

There could be some reduced disruption in adult habitat, providing improved fitness to some 

individuals. 

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA and GHMA. Sagebrush canopy 

280
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15 percent. Prescribed burning in priority and 

GHMA would be avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. These would limit the regeneration of 

shrubs across >300,000 acres. These restrictions would benefit retaining more boreal toad 

habitat. Still, this is a small portion of Forest-wide toad habitat. Impacts on the boreal toad 

population would be small.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Boreal toad habitat includes wetland and riparian and 

forested cover types where grazing management and vegetation management in timber and aspen 

stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing 

management provides important healthy willow and aspen stands for boreal toad. A small 

amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent 

to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There 

are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, 

there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, 

ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in boreal toad habitat 

off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Boreal Toad Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA. PHMA constitutes <2 percent

of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. While this alternative will maintain a 

considerable amount of habitat quantity and improve habitat quality for boreal toads, the benefits 

would be small since this habitat is a minor component of boreal toad habitat across the BT.

Effects on Boreal Toad Population Trend

The population trend on the BT National Forest is declining. Habitat conserved or improved with 

this alternative is not likely to improve the population trend since sagebrush is a minor habitat

component, other factors are having a greater influence on boreal toads, and there are only five

known breeding sites on the BT National Forest.

Summary of Alternative C

This alternative limits loss and disturbance in priority and GHMA, which is >75 percent of the 

forest-wide sagebrush habitat. There could be benefits to individual boreal toads, but these would 

likely be too small to affect the forest-wide population trend unless a new breeding site was 

discovered in priority or general sagebrush habitat. Additionally, limits on sagebrush treatment 

will protect some toad habitat. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat on the BT

National Forest will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Boreal toads are rare on the BT

281
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

National Forest, mimicking the condition throughout Wyoming. This scarcity is believed related 

primarily to chytrid fungus among other factors (Keinath and McGee 2005). Management of 

sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this situation unless a new breeding site is found in 

sagebrush. Full use of Alternative C conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a small 

impact on a few individual boreal toads, but not population trend since there is a small amount of 

overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT. 

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat degradation of sagebrush than 

most other alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 

9 percent disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does 

require consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in priority core habitat. The 

potential changes in sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very 

similar to but slightly less detrimental to boreal toads than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA will be allowed > 0.25 miles from the four

known leks and any new leks on the BT. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the 

other alternatives except Alternative A. This disturbance would affect <1 percent of the forestwide boreal toad habitat. A few more boreal toads could be disrupted or a little habitat lost. 

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

These same uses would be allowed in GHMA.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

Alternative D apply priority core habitat. A few slight differences include this alternative 

recommends considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in response to 

drought in priority core habitat. Since priority core habitat is 1 percent of forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat, these conservation measures would have a small benefit to a few individuals.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and a three disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not 

exist in Alternative A. Therefore, these measures could benefit boreal toad habitat within the 

282
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

5,593 acres of sagebrush priority core habitat. Energy and mineral development could still occur 

on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. Fluid mineral leasing closures would be 

reduced to 2 acres on federal surface and federal mineral leases compared to Alternative A 

(Appendix 1). This alternative better conserves priority core habitat and, therefore, some boreal 

toad habitat, than Alternative A.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. Treatment is restricted only 

by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. A small amount of forest-wide, adult 

toad habitat could be treated. The primary impact would be the loss of cover, making sites too

dry to maintain body moisture or thermoregulate. This sagebrush habitat would be unsuitable to 

boreal toads. Results from shrub treatment would be detrimental to individual survival. Treated 

areas would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the 

expansion of noxious weeds and a lack of cover.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

This alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Boreal 

toad habitat includes wetland and riparian and forested cover types where grazing management 

and vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can reduce cover that leads to habitat 

becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing management provides important healthy willow and 

aspen stands for boreal toad. A small amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on private, state, 

and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas 

also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other 

lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss, degradation, or 

disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and 

range management in boreal toad habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater 

length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Boreal Toad Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in: recreation and travel; lands and 

realty; range; energy and minerals; and fire and fuels then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, and higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative 

plants. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available GRSG habitat. Range 

conservation measures in Alternative D apply only to PHMA, which is <1 percent of boreal toad 

habitat on the BT. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development constraints are limited across 

GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). Since these allowable opportunities have not been implemented, 

sagebrush habitat has remained largely intact.

283
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Effects on Boreal Toad Population Trend

The population trend on the BT is believed to be declining. This population trend mimics 

statewide trends. As mentioned, however, Alternative D allows a substantial change to sagebrush 

habitat. This alternative provides the least amount of guidance to conserve sagebrush habitat that 

overlaps with boreal toad habitat. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient habitat 

change to slightly reduce the probability that the forest-wide population trend would become 

stable.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. This alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat will allow some additional shrub treatments, 

degrading or eliminating toad habitat. Limited conservation in the other four resource areas could 

allow substantial changes in boreal toad habitat quantity and quality in sagebrush habitat on the 

BT. These activities affect almost all (>98 percent) sagebrush habitat on the BT. Therefore, 

overall impacts on the boreal toad forest-wide population would be similar to Alternative A.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Boreal toads are rare on the BT, 

mimicking the condition throughout Wyoming. This scarcity is believed related primarily to 

chytrid fungus among other factors (Keinath and McGee 2005). Management of sagebrush 

habitat is not likely to change this situation unless a new breeding site is found in sagebrush. Full 

use of Alternative D conservation measures in GRSG habitat could have a small impact on a few 

individual boreal toads but not population trend since there is a small amount of overlap of 

sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs (>97,000 acres). Similarly, secondary road 

construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA management areas 

and SFAs and both would be prohibited within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades 

would be prohibited in PHMA and SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA and SFAs would 

be limited to the minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance limit on sagebrush 

lost in PHMA and SFAs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. from 

March 1 – May 15 on or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some recreation special uses 

would be allowed as long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would be more restrictive to recreation and transportation than 

Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There would be less habitat 

284
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

loss or degradation, and less disturbance in some adult habitat compared to Alternatives A and 

D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some short-term impacts could occur. Some small amount of boreal toad habitat could be lost, 

degraded or disturbed due to the 5 percent allowance for sagebrush habitat lost in PHMA or 

SFAs. The Proposed Plan Amendment includes >97,000 acres as PHMA and SFAs.

Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in designated transmission 

corridors, power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs, and some special 

uses. However, there would be 3,283 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush habitat. Small 

sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because sagebrush habitat could be exchanged to 

other ownership in limited situations. Overall, impacts on sagebrush habitat, predominantly 

PHMA and SFAs, would be reduced compared to Alternatives A and D and would be greater 

than impacts on sagebrush habitat in Alternative C. This alternative would retain about 90,000 

acres of sagebrush habitat with the 5 percent disturbance limit compared to 5,755 acres of 

PHMA retained in Alternative B with a 3 percent disturbance limit.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks (four known leks) and in other seasonal 

habitats. Most conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and 

associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that 

contributes to rangeland health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These 

measures would also maintain or improve sagebrush and some riparian habitat quality for boreal 

toads.

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands <200 acres. Potential adverse effects on

sagebrush habitat from this exception could include habitat loss or degradation or fragmentation 

due to infrastructure development.

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in PHMA and SFAs 

(>100,000 acres), and GHMA (>170,000 acres) more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B 

provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA (5,933 acres), none in SFAs, and not as 

much within GHMA (324,243 acres). Alternative C would apply to 330,176 acres of combined 

PHMA and most often, to GHMA.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit and one 

facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs (>100,000 acres). Habitat disturbing 

activities that fit within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed to cause the least possible 

285
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

impact on GRSG habitat. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 3,262 acres of GRSG habitat 

on federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, 

stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when 

approving exploration and development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions 

for PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA during GRSG breeding and winter concentration. All timing, 

distance, density, and disturbance restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and 

locatable mineral activities as well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments,

will be constructed to reduce the potential for West Nile virus.

Conservation measures in PHMA, SFAs, and often, GHMA (>330,000 combined acres), would 

provide benefits to boreal toads by retaining shrub stands and reducing disturbance. The 

conservation measures for this alternative maintain or protect sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, 

and GHMA management areas more than Alternatives A and D. For example, Alternative A has 

no disturbance limit and Alternative D has a 9 percent disturbance limit compared to 5 percent

for this alternative. Alternative D also allows three energy production locations per 640 acres and 

Alternative A has no limitation. Alternative B is often more restrictive, but covers fewer acres of 

sagebrush. Alternative C is generally more restrictive or prohibitive to energy development than 

this alternative.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs and, most often, also in GHMA. There is a 5 percent

disturbance limit for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs (>97,000 acres). In addition, 

vegetation treatment in PHMA and SFAs in nesting and wintering habitat in northeast Wyoming 

that would reduce sagebrush canopy to <15 percent would be restricted.

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush than Alternatives A 

and D, considering a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit for these Alternatives, 

respectively. There are more treatment opportunities than Alternatives B and C. Sagebrush 

treatment would be limited by Table 1 Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions, the 5 percent

disturbance cap, and the standards and guidelines for Fire Management in this alternative to 

maintain sagebrush in priority and GHMA management areas.

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush than Alternatives A 

and D, considering a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit for these alternatives, 

respectively. Sagebrush treatment would be limited by Table 1 Seasonal Habitat Desired 

Conditions, the 5 percent disturbance cap, and the standards and guidelines for Fire Management 

in this alternative to maintain sagebrush in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA. More mature sagebrush 

habitat would be maintained to provide adult habitat and some riparian inclusions would be 

maintained.

286
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Boreal toad habitat includes wetland and riparian and forested cover types where grazing 

management and vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can reduce cover that leads 

to habitat becoming unsuitable. Appropriate grazing management provides important healthy 

willow and aspen stands for boreal toad. A small amount of adult toad habitat also occurs on 

private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT National Forest. Activities 

occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be 

additional habitat loss, degradation, or disturbance from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, 

energy and mineral development, and range management in boreal toad habitat off the BT

National Forest. However, anthropogenic disturbances >5 percent on all ownerships in PHMA

and SFAs would restrict more disturbance on federal lands. Cumulative effects are discussed at 

greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Boreal Toad Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA, SFAs and often, GHMA. These 

habitats comprise much of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT. While this 

alternative will maintain a considerable amount of habitat quantity and improve habitat quality 

for boreal toads, the benefits would be small since this habitat is a minor component of boreal

toad habitat across the BT.

Effects on Boreal Toad Population Trend

The population trend on the BT is declining. Habitat conserved or improved with this alternative

is not likely to improve the population trend since sagebrush is a minor habitat component.

Other factors are having a greater influence on boreal toads, and there are only five known 

breeding sites on the BT. 

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent and one

disturbance per 640 acres. This 5 percent disturbance allowance will cause some loss of 

sagebrush habitat for adult boreal toads. This alternative also limits disturbing activities in 

PHMA and SFAs and often, GHMA. In total, there are >330,000 acres of combined PHMA, 

SFAs, and GHMA on the BT National Forest. There would be less loss or fragmentation of 

mature sagebrush habitat and some riparian inclusions for boreal toads. Generally, other 

activities in GHMA management areas and all activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat will 

occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities could 

affect boreal toad habitat on the BT National Forest.

Overall, effects of the Proposed Plan Amendment would be less impacting to the boreal toad 

forest-wide population than Alternatives A and D. Impacts would be more pronounced than 

287
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative C. Alternative B includes greater habitat protection in many cases but addresses a 

smaller area.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component of boreal toad habitat. Boreal toads are rare on the BT

National Forest, mimicking the condition throughout Wyoming. This scarcity is believed to be 

related primarily to chytrid fungus among other factors (Keinath and McGee 2005). Management 

of sagebrush habitat is not likely to change this situation unless a new breeding site is found in 

sagebrush. Full use of the Proposed Plan Amendment conservation measures in GRSG habitat 

could have a small impact on a few individual boreal toads, but not population trend since there 

is a small amount of overlap of sagebrush and boreal toad habitat across the BT.

Populus tremuloides (Aspen)

Distribution

This plant is a MIS for the BT that overlaps some GRSG habitat on the BT. Aspen occupies only 

5 percent of the BT and a much smaller amount overlaps with GRSG habitat. Aspen is one of the 

most widely distributed trees in North America. It extends from Newfoundland and Labrador 

across the northern limit of trees to northwestern Alaska, south throughout the northern tier of 

the United States, and along the Rockies into Mexico.

Habitat Associations and Threats

Aspen is generally found in the elevation zone between lower elevation shrublands to higher 

elevation conifer forest and along drainages in each of these other vegetation communities.

Threats include continued succession to later seral conifer stands due to lack of disturbance and 

localized lack of resprouting due to elk browsing near feedgrounds (Forest Service 2009).

Population Status, Trend, and Relation to Habitat

In the State of Wyoming, 53 percent of the historic aspen had converted to another vegetation 

type. On some areas of the BT, aspen has declined by 32 percent (Forest Service 2009). Through 

continued plant succession, presumably with a continued lack of disturbance, it was predicted 

that there could be a 50 percent reduction of total acres of aspen over the next 20-30 years on the 

BT. The slow, forest-wide decline of aspen mimics conditions across Wyoming.

Aspen was selected as a MIS for the BT in order to monitor the condition of this valuable habitat 

type for wildlife. Some aspen occurs within sagebrush shrubland used by GRSG.

Some aspen conditions appear to be declining. Regeneration has been reduced, particularly 

around elk feedgrounds. Aspen distribution and stand vigor has declined due to aging stands and 

related conifer encroachment. Some stands still receive higher than desired use by livestock and 

wild ungulates. 

288
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Some aspen stand conditions are improving. Rangeland management practices have improved 

considerably in the last 50 years, generally leading to better understory production. There have 

been more than 17,000 acres of prescribed aspen regeneration between 1987 and 1997 with a 

lesser amount since that decade. 

Livestock management and vegetation management on the BT can affect aspen condition.

Retaining insufficient shrub, aspen, or herbaceous production can reduce fine fuels needed for 

natural fire regeneration. Forest Service (2009) indicates that lack of disturbance is affecting the 

quality and distribution of this habitat.

Forest-wide monitoring indicates that aspen is declining on the BT. The lack of natural or 

prescribed disturbance has created a higher proportion of older age class stands and a decline in 

aspen vigor than occurred historically (Forest Service 2009a).

Alternative A - No Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current BT National Forest system roads, transportation plan, 

or recreation management. There would be few seasonal restrictions on casual use, and some 

new roads and upgrading of existing roads would be permitted. There are few restrictions on 

recreation special uses. These activities would continue on 5,933 acres of PHMA and 324,243

acres of GHMA and there would be no density or disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush habitat 

lost to road construction. In general, more acres and lineal miles of routes and use equate to a 

greater likelihood of loss of aspen.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no changes to the current approach associated with exchange, acquisition, or 

disposal of lands or with permitting ROWs on Forest Service-administered lands. There would 

be 2,107 acres of ROW exclusion areas in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). Some aspen habitat 

could be traded to other ownership where there is greater potential for development for economic 

benefits in this area and less probability that regeneration treatment will occur. All Forest 

Service-administered lands would continue to be managed according to Forest Service policy 

and regulation. Permitted ROWs would continue to allow construction, maintenance, and 

operation activities that may result in aspen loss. Other impacts may include new infestations of 

noxious or invasive weeds. Though most projects would attempt to mitigate or minimize 

impacts, there could be loss of aspen.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no change in the numbers, timing, or method of livestock grazing on the BT.

Livestock grazing is permitted on 3,270 acres (55 percent) of priority core habitat on the BT.

Potential effects on aspen habitat could include site specific overgrazing, reduction in structure 

289
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

and diversity of residual vegetation from consumption, and degradation of rangeland habitat due 

to trampling near riparian vegetation. Related impacts include reduced potential for regeneration 

from wildfires. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for grazing management usually provide 

sufficient cover and diversity for healthy aspen across the BT. For example, the BT LRMP 

indicates that GRSG species’ needs will be addressed in allotment management plans and range 

improvements, management activities, and trailing will be coordinated with and designed to help 

meet the needs of GRSG.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Only a small percentage of PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable minerals. The 

majority and remainder of all designated habitats are open to leasing, including expansion of new 

leases. This alternative could allow a large amount of direct and indirect habitat loss and 

degradation of sagebrush habitat. For example, fluid mineral leasing would be closed on only 

3,263 acres of federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Direct loss of sagebrush 

habitat could also include loss of adjacent aspen.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be few restrictions for fuels management in sagebrush. There would be no 

disturbance limit for acres of sagebrush moved into an early successional stage by wildfires and 

prescribed fires. Some aspen habitat could be treated. Benefits would include regenerating 

younger, more vigorous aspen clones. Forest Service (2009a) indicates “the existing proportion 

of the big sagebrush type in late succession exceeds what would exist if the communities were in 

healthy, functioning conditions”. Also, Forest Service (2009) indicates that a lack of fire is the 

primary reason for the decline of aspen on the BT. Results from shrub treatment would benefit 

aspen persistence. There could also be increasing nonnative or exotic grasses or weeds. This 

alternative does recommend that any necessary rehabilitation include native plants.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Aspen occurs across the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality aspen habitat. Appropriate 

grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands. Aspen also occurs on private, state, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also 

occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, 

especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, 

ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in aspen habitat off the 

BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS 

Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Aspen Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in recreation and travel, lands and realty, 

range, energy and minerals, and fire and fuels then the combined impact would be a trend toward 

290
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, higher 

occurrence of invasive and nonnative plants, but also more early succession grass-dominated 

habitat or regenerated aspen,. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of available 

GRSG habitat. While there is LRMP guidance to address GRSG habitat needs in allotment 

management plans, there is currently no other specific guidance in the BT LRMP for grazing 

relative to promoting quality GRSG habitat. Likewise, oil, gas, and geothermal development 

constraints are limited in GRSG habitat (Appendix 1). Since these allowable opportunities have 

not been implemented, sagebrush habitat, and adjacent aspen, has remained largely intact 

although aspen quality continues to slowly decline.

Effects on Aspen Population Trend

The aspen population trend on the BT is declining. This population trend mimics statewide 

trends. As mentioned, current LRMP guidance allows a substantial change to sagebrush habitat 

and the small amount of forest-wide aspen inclusions. This alternative provides the least amount 

of guidance to conserve sagebrush habitat that intersects with aspen. On the other hand, this 

alternative provides the greatest opportunity to regenerate aspen inclusions within sagebrush 

habitat. Therefore, this alternative would allow sufficient habitat change to slightly improve the 

probability that the forest-wide population trend would stabilize.

Summary of Alternative A

Existing conservation measures for sagebrush habitat are limited, so there is a potential for 

habitat alteration or loss in aspen. Limitations would be provided only by Forest Plan guidance, 

which generally allows substantial disturbance in sagebrush habitat. Regenerating shrub stands 

with fuels treatments would benefit aspen. However, limited conservation in the other four

resource areas could allow substantial changes in aspen habitat quantity, quality, and ownership 

in sagebrush habitat on the BT.

Currently, existing Forest Plan guidance has been adequate to manage loss in GRSG habitat 

which overlaps with some aspen habitat on the Forest. In general, sagebrush shrubland has a 

small amount of overlap with aspen on the BT. Substantial changes to sagebrush quantity have 

not occurred, but the quality of aspen habitat has declined (Forest Service 2009). The aspen 

population trend on the BT is declining, which mimics statewide trends. Prescribed fire in 

sagebrush habitat could have a small impact on reducing the decline of aspen since there is small 

forest-wide overlap. Full use of Alternative A conservation measures in GRSG habitat would 

have a small impact on individual aspen clones since there is little overlap, most aspen is 

adjoining to other forest vegetation types, and conservation measures are limited to GRSG 

habitat. 

291
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be limited opportunities for road construction in PHMA coupled with allowing only 

the minimum necessary road standard and no upgrading of current roads. There would be a 3

percent disturbance limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA to road construction and other activities.

The disturbance limit would be applied to 5,933 acres of PHMA in Alternative. All travel would 

remain on designated routes. Recreational use permits would only be permitted in PHMA if there 

was a neutral or beneficial impact on GRSG. All GRSG PHMA and Important Bird Areas could 

be designated as SIAs. These measures allow less habitat loss than Alternative A, retaining more 

sagebrush habitat and intermixed aspen across the BT. Of course these benefits would occur on 

only a small percentage of Forest-wide aspen, so they would not be reflected in the population 

trend. 

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be managed as an exclusion area and GHMA would be managed as an avoidance 

area for new ROW projects. In addition, Alternative B would encourage consolidation and 

acquisition of GRSG PHMA and, therefore, a potential gain of some aspen habitat on the BT.

There would be 5,955 acres of ROW exclusion areas (Appendix 1). These conservation measures 

would be more protective than conservation measures in Alternatives A, D, and E, but less 

protective than Alternative C. This represents a concerted effort to maximize connectivity and 

minimize fragmentation of GRSG PHMA, which also benefits limited amounts of aspen. 

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B would adjust grazing direction in GRSG PHMA in favor of GRSG habitat quality; 

therefore, in favor of aspen habitat quality. There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the BT 

National Forest in this alternative. Many livestock infrastructure improvements could occur only 

if beneficial to upland or riparian habitat. Areas not meeting grazing standards will be only 

lightly grazed. These measures would benefit aspen. The potential effects due to livestock

grazing and range improvements would be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative B 

provides more restrictions that would protect aspen habitat. GRSG PHMA accounts for less than 

1 percent of the land cover of the BT so any changes would be localized. There could be small 

areas of improved aspen quality.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

PHMA would be closed to new fluid mineral leases and existing leases would have a four mile,

no surface occupancy buffer around leks. Though there are only four known active leks and only 

5,933 acres of PHMA on the BT, this alternative would conserve this habitat now and into the 

future for GRSG and, consequently, for aspen. Energy and mineral development could still occur 

on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat.

292
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Additionally, there would be a 3 percent disturbance limitation and a one disturbance/section 

limitation in PHMA. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 8,722 acres of federal surface and 

federal mineral leases compared to Alternative A (Appendix 1). This alternative better conserves 

the 5,933 acres of PHMA, and therefore aspen, than Alternatives A, D, and E and is equal to 

Alternative C in PHMA.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA. Suppression, protection, 

restoration and recovery would be emphasized in PHMA. Prescribed burning in PHMA would be 

avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. Burning would also be included in the 3 percent

disturbance limit. These measures would limit the regeneration of shrubs on the 5,593 acres of 

PHMA. Less aspen would not be regenerated here. Still, this is only 1 percent of the sagebrush 

habitat on the BT. Impacts on the aspen population would be small to immeasurable.

Additional information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009) indicates that a lack 

of fire is the primary reason for the decline of aspen on the BT. This alternative would perpetuate 

this condition in PHMA.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Aspen occurs across the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality aspen habitat. Appropriate 

grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands. Aspen also occurs on private, state, and 

BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities occurring in the five resource areas also 

occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures on these other lands, 

especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, 

ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management in aspen habitat off the 

BT. However, anthropogenic disturbances >3 percent on all ownerships in PHMA would restrict 

more disturbance on federal lands. Cumulative effects are discussed in greater detail in Manier et 

al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Aspen Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA. PHMA constitutes <2 percent

of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat, some intermingled with aspen, on the BT. While this 

alternative will maintain some habitat quantity and improve some habitat quality, benefits would 

be small in relation to the amount of aspen present across the BT.

Effects on Aspen Population Trend

The aspen population trend on the BT is declining. This population trend mimics statewide 

trends. The population trend is not expected to change substantially as a result of management 

changes across <2 percent of the sagebrush habitat across the BT. On the other hand, this 

293
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

alternative would allow the opportunity to regenerate aspen on the remaining 98 percent of

forest-wide sagebrush, though this is still a small portion of forest-wide aspen.

Summary of Alternative B

This alternative limits disturbance in PHMA, which intermingles with a very small portion of the 

forest-wide aspen habitat. There could be benefits to individual aspen clones, but these would be 

too small to affect the forest-wide population trend. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush 

treatment will prohibit regeneration of some intermingled aspen stands. Generally, activities in 

GHMA and the remaining sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest will occur as they do 

currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities affect almost all 98

percent of sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest. Therefore, overall impacts on the aspen 

forest-wide would be similar to Alternative A.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component intermixed with aspen on the BT. Aspen on the BT

National Forest is declining and is related to a lack of disturbances (Forest Service 2009). The 

aspen trend on the Forest mimics statewide trends for the same reason. Prescribed burning within 

priority sagebrush habitat alone is not likely to change this decline. Full use of Alternative B 

conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual aspen clones,

but not the population. Since aspen occurs across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures 

are limited to GRSG habitat and most sagebrush is not intermixed with aspen habitat.

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to aspen than other alternatives. Conservation 

measures would generally be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, these measures 

would benefit more than 300,000 more acres of sagebrush habitat intermixed with aspen than 

other alternatives. New road construction is prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks 

and avoided in priority and GHMA. Existing road management would be designed to maintain or 

improve both priority and GHMA. Camping and other non-motorized recreation would be 

seasonally prohibited within four miles of active GRSG leks. These measures would limit habitat 

loss and benefit aspen where it is intermixed with sagebrush across more than 300,000 acres.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C would have the most protective measures for sagebrush intermixed with aspen.

Priority and GHMA would be managed as an exclusion area for new ROW projects. This is 

much of forest-wide sagebrush habitat, some intermixed with aspen. Alternative C would 

encourage consolidation and acquisition of GRSG habitat, limiting the possibilities for loss of 

habitat.

294
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 5,933 acres of PHMA across the Forest Service units in this alternative. The 

prohibition of livestock grazing in PHMA would promote the most cover and diversity within 

aspen, indicators of stand health. This cover would provide the greatest opportunity for 

regeneration through fire. Still, PHMA includes a very small portion of forest-wide aspen 

habitat; benefits would occur to individual clones and not be reflected in the population trend 

across the BT.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measure would be more beneficial to aspen habitat than other alternatives. Many 

conservation measures would be applied to GHMA in addition to PHMA. Therefore, these 

measures would benefit more than 260,000 more acres of sagebrush where aspen can be 

intermingled. Fluid mineral leases would be closed on 315,582 acres of federal surface and 

federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). No exceptions, waivers, modifications to lease stipulations, 

COAs, and T&Cs will be considered within PHMA (5,933 acres) and GHMA. Priority and 

GHMA would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. As existing leases expire or are terminated, no 

new nominations would be accepted for parcels within priority or GHMA. Geophysical 

exploration would only be allowed in priority and GHMA to obtain exploratory information for 

areas outside of and adjacent to these habitats and it would be subject to seasonal restrictions that 

preclude activities in GRSG breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats during their 

season of use by GRSG. All PHMA would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing.

PHMA would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits. Overall, 

habitat loss would be reduced on this portion of forest-wide aspen habitat.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Suppression, protection, restoration, and recovery would be emphasized in priority and GHMA.

Prescribed fire in sagebrush would be very limited in PHMA and GHMA. Sagebrush canopy 

cover would generally not be reduced to less than 15 percent. Prescribed burning in priority and 

GHMA would be avoided in <12 inch precipitation zone. This alternative would limit the 

regeneration of shrubs across >300,000 acres of sagebrush. Aspen regeneration would also be 

prohibited in these areas.

Lack of sagebrush treatment would be detrimental to aspen over the long-term. Additional 

information from forest-wide monitoring (Forest Service 2009) indicates that a lack of fire is the 

primary reason for the decline of aspen on the BT. This alternative would perpetuate this 

condition in priority and GHMA.

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in addition to impacts described above. Aspen occurs across the entire BT where vegetation 

management in timber and aspen stands can create more quality aspen habitat. Appropriate 

grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands. Aspen also occurs on private, state, and 

295
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT National Forest. Activities occurring in the five

resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing conservation measures 

on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be additional habitat loss from 

recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral development, and range management 

in aspen habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. 

(2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Aspen Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG priority and GHMA. These habitats 

comprise much of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT National Forest, some 

intermingled with aspen. While this alternative will maintain some habitat quantity and improve 

some habitat quality, benefits would be small in relation to the amount of aspen present across 

the BT National Forest.

Effects on Aspen Population Trend

The aspen population trend on the BT is declining. This population trend mimics statewide 

trends. The population trend is not expected to change substantially as a result of management 

changes within the sagebrush habitat across the BT, only some of which overlaps with aspen.

Summary of Alternative C

This alternative limits loss in priority and GHMA, which is >75 percent of the forest-wide 

sagebrush habitat. There could be benefits to individual aspen clones, but these would be small 

improvements to aspen forest-wide. On the other hand, limits on sagebrush treatment will also 

limit regeneration of intermingled aspen. Generally, activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat 

on the BT will occur as they do currently or could expand as existing direction allows.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component intermixed with aspen on the BT. Aspen on the BT is 

declining and is related to a lack of disturbances (Forest Service 2009). The aspen trend on the 

Forest mimics statewide trends for the same reason. Prescribed burning of sagebrush habitat 

alone is not likely to change this decline. In addition, full use of Alternative C conservation 

measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual aspen clones but not the 

population since aspen occurs across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to 

GRSG habitat, and most sagebrush is not intermixed with aspen habitat.

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

The allowances for road construction, road upgrades, and recreation special uses in this 

alternative will result in more habitat loss and habitat degradation of sagebrush than most other 

alternatives. Most measures are similar to Alternative A, although Alternative D has a 9 percent

296
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

disturbance cap and three disturbances per 640 acres in priority core habitat and it does require 

consideration of GRSG needs for recreation special uses in PHMA. The potential changes in 

sagebrush habitat not covered by conservation measures would be very similar to but slightly 

less detrimental to aspen than Alternative A.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Surface disturbance and surface occupancy in PHMA will be allowed > 0.25 miles from the four

known leks and any new leks on the BT. This is closer than the disturbance allowed under the 

other alternatives except Alternative A. This disturbance would affect <2 percent of the forestwide sagebrush habitat, some of which is intermixed with aspen. A few more aspen clones could 

be disrupted.

New ROWs and SUAs in priority core habitat would generally be excluded; those allowed would 

be subject to the 9 percent disturbance limit. This is more disturbance, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation than allowed in Alternatives B, C, and E, but less disturbance than Alternative A.

These same uses would be allowed in GHMA.

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. Vegetative management and 

grazing infrastructure remain the same as Alternative A. Many conservation measures of 

Alternative D apply to priority core habitat. A few slight differences include this alternative 

recommends considering GRSG habitat objectives in permit renewals and changes in response to 

drought in priority core habitat. Since priority core habitat is 1 percent of forest-wide sagebrush 

habitat, these conservation measures would have a very small benefit to aspen forest-wide.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

Most conservation measures are generally similar to Alternative A. However, there is a 9 percent

disturbance cap and a three disturbances/640 acres limit in priority core habitat that does not 

exist in Alternative A. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 2 acres of federal surface and 

federal mineral leases compared to Alternative A (Appendix 1). Therefore, these measures would 

benefit 5,593 acres of sagebrush, some intermixed with aspen. Energy and mineral development 

could still occur on the remaining 425,000 acres of sagebrush habitat. This alternative better 

conserves priority core habitat and, therefore, some aspen habitat, than Alternative A.

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects

Treatment is restricted only by the 9 percent disturbance cap in priority core habitat. Sagebrush 

treatment would follow WGFD Protocols for treating sagebrush to benefit GRSG; a tool to 

determine whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” contributing toward the 9 

percent threshold. Also, treatment is permitted in GRSG breeding, nesting, and winter range.

Benefits could include regenerating aspen intermixed with sagebrush. However, treated areas 

would not be rested from livestock grazing. This allowance alone will promote the expansion of 

noxious weeds and a lack of aspen stand health.

297
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

This Alternative mirrors much of the management direction in Alternative A. Many of the 

conservation measures included in this alternative are limited to priority core habitat. There 

could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Aspen 

occurs across the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can create 

more quality aspen habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides healthy aspen stands.

Aspen also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the BT. Activities 

occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some existing 

conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could be 

additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in aspen habitat off the BT. Cumulative effects are 

discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG 

amendment.

Effects on Aspen Habitat Trend

If currently allowable opportunities were fully pursued in: recreation and travel; lands and 

realty; range; energy and minerals; and fire and fuels then the combined impact would be a trend 

toward more loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, more disturbances in sagebrush habitat, 

higher occurrence of invasive and nonnative plants, but also more early succession grassdominated habitat or regenerated aspen. For example, livestock grazing occurs on >70 percent of 

available GRSG habitat. Range conservation measures in Alternative D apply only to PHMA, 

which is 1 percent of sagebrush habitat on the BT. Therefore, sagebrush and intermixed aspen 

habitat quality could be reduced across much of the sagebrush on the BT. Likewise, oil, gas, and 

geothermal development can be permitted with stipulations on 234,000 acres of GRSG habitat.

Since these allowable opportunities have not been implemented, sagebrush habitat, and adjacent 

aspen, has remained largely intact although aspen quality continues to slowly decline.

Effects on Aspen Population Trend

The aspen population trend on the BT is declining. This population trend mimics statewide 

trends. The population trend is not expected to change substantially as a result of management 

changes across approximately 2 percent of the sagebrush habitat on the BT. On the other hand, 

this alternative would allow the opportunity to regenerate aspen on the remaining 98 percent of 

forest-wide sagebrush. Therefore, this alternative would allow some habitat change to slightly 

improve the probability that the forest-wide population trend would stabilize.

Summary of Alternative D

This alternative is most similar to Alternative A. This Alternative does include a cap on 

disturbance in priority core habitat while there is no similar limit in Alternative A. The allowance 

of 9 percent disturbance in priority core habitat will allow some additional shrub treatments.

These could include aspen regeneration. However, limited conservation in the other four

resource areas could allow substantial changes in aspen habitat quantity, quality, and ownership 

298
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

in sagebrush habitat on the BT. This Alternative prevents more disturbance in these four areas 

than Alternative A.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland is not a significant component intermixed with aspen on the BT. Aspen on the BT is 

declining and is related to a lack of disturbances (Forest Service 2009). The aspen trend on the 

BT mimics statewide trends for the same reason. Prescribed burning of sagebrush habitat alone is 

not likely to change this decline. In addition, full use of Alternative D conservation measures in 

GRSG habitat would have a small impact on individual aspen clones but not the population since 

aspen occurs across all habitats on the BT, conservation measures are limited to GRSG habitat, 

and most sagebrush is not intermixed with aspen habitat.

Proposed Plan Amendment (Preferred Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Recreation and Travel Direct and Indirect Effects

New primary (category level 4 and 5) roads would be restricted within 1.9 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GRSG leks within PHMA and SFAs. These comprise >97,000 acres. Similarly, 

secondary road construction would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied leks in PHMA and 

SFAs and both would be prohibited within 0.25 miles in GHMA. In addition, road upgrades 

would be prohibited in PHMA management areas and SFAs. Any necessary new roads in PHMA

and SFAs would be limited to the minimum standard. There would be a 5 percent disturbance 

limit on sagebrush lost in PHMA and SFAs. Disruptive activities are restricted from 6:00 p.m. to 

9:00 a.m. from March 1 – May 15 on or within 0.6 miles of occupied GRSG leks. Some 

recreation special uses would be allowed as long as habitat loss and disturbance do not occur in 

PHMA and SFAs. Conservation measures would be more restrictive to recreation and 

transportation than Alternatives A and D, but less restrictive than Alternatives B and C. There 

would be less habitat loss or degradation compared to Alternatives A and D.

Lands and Realty Direct and Indirect Effects

Some short-term impacts could occur. Some small amount of aspen habitat could be lost, 

degraded or disturbed. The Proposed Plan Amendment includes >97,000 acres as PHMA and 

SFAs. Conservation measures would allow some power lines or upgrades in designated 

transmission corridors, power lines >0.6 miles from occupied leks in PHMA and SFAs, and 

some special uses. However, there would be 3,283 acres of ROW exclusion areas in sagebrush 

habitat (Appendix 1). Small sagebrush habitat changes could also occur because sagebrush 

habitat could be exchanged to other ownership in limited situations. Overall, impacts on 

sagebrush and intermixed aspen would be reduced compared to Alternatives A and D and would 

be greater than impacts on sagebrush habitat in Alternative C. This Alternative would retain 

about 90,000 acres of sagebrush habitat with the 5 percent disturbance limit compared to 5,755 

acres of PHMA retained in Alternative B with a 3 percent disturbance limit.

299
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Range Direct and Indirect Effects

Conservation measures place more focus on incorporating practices to provide adequate habitat 

quality for GRSG within 5.3 miles of occupied leks (four known leks) and in other seasonal 

habitats. Most conservation measures apply to PHMA and SFAs. Livestock grazing and 

associated range improvement projects would be planned and authorized in a manner that 

contributes to rangeland health and maintains or improves GRSG sagebrush habitat. These 

measures would also maintain or improve aspen stands intermixed with this sagebrush habitat.

There would be some exceptions for areas with less than 200 acres of GRSG habitat in an 

allotment or on isolated parcels of Forest Service lands <200 acres. Potential adverse effects on

sagebrush habitat and intermixed aspen from this exception could include habitat loss, 

degradation, or fragmentation due to infrastructure development.

The conservation measures for this alternative improve sagebrush habitat in in PHMA and SFAs 

(>100,000 acres), and GHMA (232,423 acres) more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative B 

provides more restrictions on livestock grazing in PHMA (5,933 acres), none in SFAs, and not as 

much within GHMA. Alternative C would apply to 330,176 acres of combined PHMA and most 

often, GHMA.

Energy and Minerals Direct and Indirect Effects

In all GRSG habitats, but especially PHMA and SFAs, minerals operators will be encouraged to 

reduce disturbance to GRSG habitat. There is a 5 percent disturbance of habitat limit and one 

facility per 640 acres density limit in PHMA and SFAs (>100,000 acres). Habitat disturbing 

activities that fit within the 5 percent disturbance cap will be designed to cause the least possible 

impact on GRSG habitat. Fluid mineral leasing would be closed on 3,262 acres of habitat on 

federal surface and federal mineral leases (Appendix 1). Where there are existing leases, 

stipulations for the protection of GRSG or their habitats could be added to COAs when 

approving exploration and development activities. There are timing and/or distance restrictions 

for PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA during GRSG breeding and winter concentration. All timing, 

distance, density, and disturbance restrictions will be applied to non-energy leasable, salable, and 

locatable mineral activities as well. Development activities, such as dams and impoundments,

will be constructed to reduce the potential for West Nile virus.

Conservation measures in PHMA, SFAs, and often, (>330,000 combined acres) would also 

maintain or reduce disturbance to inclusions of aspen. The conservation measures for this 

alternative maintain or protect sagebrush habitat in PHMA, SFAs, and GHMA more than 

Alternatives A and D. For example, Alternative A has no disturbance limit and Alternative D 

has a 9 percent disturbance limit, compared to 5 percent for this alternative. Alternative D also 

allows three energy production locations per 640 acres and Alternative A has no limitation.

Alternative B is often more restrictive, but covers fewer acres of sagebrush. Alternative C is 

generally more restrictive or prohibitive to energy development than this alternative.

300
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Fire and Fuels Management Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are numerous conservation measures in this alternative to maintain and protect sagebrush 

habitat in priority areas and SFAs and, most often, also in GHMA. There is a 5 percent

disturbance limit for sagebrush disturbance in PHMA and SFAs (>97,000 acres).

Conservation measures would be more beneficial to maintaining sagebrush and aspen inclusions 

than Alternatives A and D considering a no disturbance limit and a 9 percent disturbance limit 

for these alternatives, respectively. There are more treatment opportunities than Alternatives B 

and C. Sagebrush treatment, with intermixed aspen, would be limited by Table 1 Seasonal 

Habitat Desired Conditions, the 5 percent disturbance cap, and the standards and guidelines for 

Fire Management in this alternative to maintain sagebrush in priority and GHMA management 

areas. More mature sagebrush habitat and intermixed aspen would be maintained but these 

measures would also limit some opportunities to regenerate declining aspen clones. 

Cumulative Effects for Five Resource Areas

There could be additional effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Aspen occurs across the entire BT where vegetation management in timber and aspen stands can 

create more quality aspen habitat. Appropriate grazing management also provides healthy aspen 

stands. Aspen also occurs on private, state, and BLM-administered land adjacent to the Forest.

Activities occurring in the five resource areas also occur on these ownerships. There are some 

existing conservation measures on these other lands, especially BLM. Cumulatively, there could 

be additional habitat loss from recreation and travel, ROWs granted, energy and mineral 

development, and range management in aspen habitat off the BT. However, anthropogenic 

disturbances >5 percent on all ownerships in PHMA and SFAs would restrict more disturbance 

on federal lands. Cumulative effects are discussed at greater length in Manier et al. (2013) and 

the EIS Chapter 4 for this GRSG amendment.

Effects on Aspen Habitat Trend

This alternative promotes greater conservation of GRSG PHMA, SFAs and often, GHMA. These 

habitats comprise much of the 430,870 acres of sagebrush habitat on the BT, some intermixed 

with aspen. This alternative will maintain and improve sagebrush and some aspen habitat 

quantity and quality across the BT. However, the limitation on prescribed burning could have 

negative impacts over time.

Effects on Aspen Population Trend

The aspen population trend on the BT is declining. This population trend mimics statewide 

trends. The population trend is not expected to change substantially as a result of management 

changes within much of the sagebrush habitat across the BT, only some of which overlaps with 

aspen. 

301
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Summary of Proposed Plan Amendment

This alternative limits habitat loss and fragmentation in PHMA and SFAs to 5 percent and one

disturbance per 640 acres. This 5 percent disturbance allowance could cause some loss of aspen 

inclusions within sagebrush. This 5 percent disturbance allowance will also allow some limited 

shrub (and aspen) treatments. In total, there are >100,000 acres of PHMA and SFAs and 232,423

acres of GHMA on the BT in the Proposed Plan Amendment. There would be less loss or 

fragmentation of aspen inclusions within sagebrush habitat. Generally, other activities in GHMA

management areas and all activities in the remaining sagebrush habitat will occur as they do 

currently or could expand as existing direction allows. These activities could affect the vast 

majority of aspen habitat on the BT National Forest. Overall, effects of the Proposed Plan 

Amendment would be less impacting to aspen forest-wide than Alternatives A and D. Impacts 

would be more pronounced than Alternative C. Alternative B includes greater habitat protection 

in many cases but addresses a smaller area.

Substantial changes to existing sagebrush habitat have not occurred. In general, sagebrush 

shrubland intermixed with aspen is not a significant component on the BT. Aspen on the BT

National Forest is declining and is related to a lack of disturbances (Forest Service 2009). The 

aspen trend on the BT National Forest mimics statewide trends for the same reason. Management 

of sagebrush habitat alone is not likely to change this decline. In addition, full use of the 

Proposed Plan Amendment conservation measures in GRSG habitat would have a small impact 

on individual aspen clones, but not the population since aspen occurs across the BT, conservation 

measures are limited to GRSG habitat, and most sagebrush is not intermixed with aspen habitat.

III. CONCLUSION

There are no noticeable impacts on MIS on the MB at the landscape level since GRSG habitat 

associated with this unit is scattered and generally on the periphery of the unit. However, several 

MIS for the BT National Forest and TB National Grassland could potentially be impacted by the 

no action and action Alternatives. A comparison of alternatives is provided in Table 15. When 

considering the potential for population-level impacts on MIS other than GRSG, across three 

planning areas, it is important to consider that PHMA and GHMA comprise a small portion of 

the overall habitat in the planning areas for most the MIS under analysis. Therefore, it is unlikely 

that population-level trends at the Forest scale would be significantly altered by any of the action 

alternatives for most MIS. A more likely scenario under the action alternatives is that there could 

be slight changes in the numbers of individuals and quality of habitat in localized areas of 

designated habitat for most MIS. This MIS analysis indicates that implementation of any of the 

action alternatives for most MIS would cause small habitat changes in the analysis area that 

could cause no change to small changes for stable or improving habitats and MIS populations at 

the Forest or Grassland scale.

302
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

The NFMA implementing regulations require that "Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to 

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the 

planning area." Species are to be selected as MIS because their population changes are believed 

to indicate the effects of land management activities. Below are the specific conclusions for each 

MIS species except those on the MB National Forest where no noticeable impacts on MIS are 

expected. This is due to the fact that GRSG habitat associated with this unit is scattered and 

generally on the periphery of the unit.

Table 15. Summary of Alternative Comparisons for Species Addressed.

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Recreation and 

Travel Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, E

Not C

Alternative C 

Most 

Protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective than 

A, and D

Not B or C

Lands and 

Realty Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, E 

Not C

Alternative C 

Most 

Protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Range

Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D

Not C & E

More 

protective than 

A, B and D

Not E

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

Most Protective

Energy and 

Minerals

Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, E

Equal to C in 

PHMA.

More 

protective than 

Alternative A, 

D, E

Equal to B in 

PHMA.

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

Fire and Fuels

Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, E 

Not C

Alternative C 

Most 

Protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

CUMULATIVE 

EFFECTS Least 

Protective

More protective 

than Alternative A, 

D, E 

Not C

Alternative C 

Most 

Protective

Better than A

Not B, C, or E

More protective

than A, and D

Not B or C

303
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

IV. LITERATURE CITED

Beck, J. L., Connelly, J. W., & Wambolt, C. L. (2012). Consequences of treating Wyoming big 

sagebrush to enhance wildlife habitats. Journal of Rangeland Management, 65(5), 444-

455.Beck, J. L., & Mitchell, D. L. (2000). Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse 

habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 993-1002.Blickley, J. L., Blackwood, D., & 

Patricelli, G. L. (2012). Experimental Evidence for the Effects of Chronic Anthropogenic 

Noise on Abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at Leks. Conservation Biology, 26(3), 461-

471. Braun, C.E. 2006. A Blueprint for Sage-grouse Conservation and Recovery. Gouse, 

Inc. Tuscon, AZ.Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance 

of boreal toads from the mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7(2):355-362.

Caughley,G. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. J. Anim.Ecol. 63:215–244.

Cerovski, A. O., Grenier, M., Oakleaf, B., Van Fleet, L., & Patla, S. (2004). Atlas of Birds, 

Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Lander, WY: Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department Nongame Program. Corn, P.S. 1994. What we know and don’t know 

about amphibian declines in the west. Pages 59-67 in W.W. Covington and L.F. DeBano, 

technical coordinators. Sustainable ecological systems: implementing and ecological 

approach to land management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-247.

Davies, K. W., Boyd, C. S., Beck, J. L., Bates, J. D., Svejcar, T. J., & Gregg, M. A. (2011). 

Saving the Sagebrush Sea: An Ecosystem Conservation Plan for Big Sagebrush Plant 

Communities. Biological Conservation, 144, 2573-2584. Garton, E.O., J. W. Connelly, 

J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M.A. Schroeder. 2011. Greater sage-grouse 

population dynamics and probability of persistence. Chap. 15 in Greater Sage-Grouse: 

Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats, S.T. Knick and J.W. 

Connelly, eds. Pp293-382.

Gilbert, M. M. and Chalfoun, A. D. 2011. Energy development affects populations of sagebrush 

songbirds in Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75: 816–824.

Grenier, M.B. B. Abel, and N. Cudworth. 2012. Threatened, endangered, and non-game bird and 

mammal investigations annual report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. 

Holloran, M. J. (2005). Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population Response 

to Natural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation. Laramie, 

WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology and Physiology. Holmes, J.A. and 

M.J. Johnson. 2005. Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella brewerii): a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf

304
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Keinath, D. and M. McGee. 2005. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation 

assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, 

Colorado.

Knick and Connelly (eds.) 2011 Greater Sage-grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape 

Species and Its Habitat. Studies in Avain Biology Loeffler, C. (ed.). 2001. Conservation 

plan and agreement for the management and recovery of the southern Rocky Mountain 

population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas).

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. 

Mayne,, S.J. Oyler-McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary 

of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation 

of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2013, Fort Collins, Colorado, 287pp.

Moreno, F (editor). 2012. Final Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation for the 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments. USDA 

Forest Service. 246pp.

Nicholoff, S. H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming bird conservation plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. Internet 

website: http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/WY/menu.htm

Patla, D.A. and D. Keinath. 2005. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris formerly R. 

pretiosa): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiaspottedfrog.pdf 

Sage Grouse National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse 

Conservation Measures. Internet website: 

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/

www/nepa/85336_FSPLT2_115747.pdf 

Taylor, R.L., D.E. Naugle, and L. S. Mills. 2012. Viability Analysis for Conservation of Sagegrouse Populations: Buffalo Field Office. Univ of Montana. 

Forest Service (US Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service). 1990. Bridger-Teton 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Region 4, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Jackson, Wyoming. 396pp.

. 1991. Forest Service Manual Amendment 2600-91-5. July 19, 1991.

. 2001. Thunder Basin National Grassland Land Resource Management Plan, 2001 

Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, 

Wyoming.

305
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

. 2003. Medicine Bow National Forest Land Resource Management Plan, 2003 Revision. 

USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt National Forest. Laramie, Wyoming.

. 2009. Updated Assessment of the Condition of Management Indicator Species Habitat 

With Respect to livestock Grazing Use On the Bridger-Teton National Forest. BridgerTeton National Forest. Jackson, WY. 148pp. 

. 2009a. Management Indicator Species for the Bridger-Teton National Forest. BridgerTeton National Forest. Jackson, WY. 38pp.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Denver, CO. 92 pp. + appendices.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 

12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 75(55): 13910-14014.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Denver, CO. 92 pp. + appendices.

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse 

Conservation Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 558pp.

. 2010. Job Completion Report for Sublette Pronghorn Antelope. Internet website: 

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/JCR_BGGR_ANT_201000010

34.pdf

. 2013. Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group Reports 2007-2008. Internet website: 

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/wildlife-1000817.aspx

. 2011. Annual report of big and trophy game harvest. Internet website:

http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/hunting-1000829.aspx.

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2011. WYOMING GAME AND FISH 

DEPARTMENT PROTOCOLS FOR TREATING SAGEBRUSH TO BE CONSISTENT 

WITH WYOMING EXECUTIVE ORDER 2011-5; GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CORE 

AREA PROTECTION. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). 2014. Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan Addendum. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming.

Wikipedia. 2014. on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp-tailed_Grouse#Distribution

306
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Greater Sage-Grouse Job Completion June 1, 2012- May 

31, 2013. Internet website: 

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/JCR_SAGEGROUSE_201213

0005906.pdf

307
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

APPENDIX 1

Table 1: Combined Acres by Land Use Restriction for Bridger-Teton National Forest, Medicine Bow National Forest, and Thunder Basin National 

Grassland Federal Surface and Federal Mineral Leases

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Surface 

Disturbing 

Activities

Prohibited 

Areas

core 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,003.18

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,135.35

proposed 

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,383.76

SFAs 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.47

GHMA 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.98

TOTAL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 8542.00

Restricted 

Areas

core 4,617.65 0.00 0.00 819.61 2,444.47

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

SFAs 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00

GHMA 2170 0.00 0.00 258 69

TOTAL 6,788.52 0.00 0.00 1,078 2,514

Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Closed

core 2,166.46 335,873.94 333,388.47 6,736.35 2,164.87

connectivity 0.00 10,099.89 10,099.89 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

SFAs 0 0 0 0 0

308
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

GHMA 1,178.47 2,776.29 1,096,184.87 3.46 0.00

TOTAL 3,344.93 348,750.12 1,439,673.23 6,739.82 3,343.34

No Surface 

Occupancy

core 4,505.06 114,779.91 114,761.52 0.00 22,235.40

connectivity 0.00 139.29 139.29 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,576.69

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,383.76

SFAs 0 0 0 0.00 6.45

GHMA 3,586.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,474.36

TOTAL 8,091.57 114,919.19 114,900.81 0.00 28,676.67

Controlled 

Surface Use

core 180,517.76 0.00 0.00 87,223.23 291,563.16

connectivity 320.84 0.00 0.00 57.86 5,589.99

proposed core 0 0.00 0.00 0 76,257.96

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0.00 0 61,066.72

SFAs 0 0.00 0.00 0 1591

GHMA 162,950.09 0.00 0.00 55,956.89 42,683.89

TOTAL 343,788.69 0.00 0.00 143,237.99 478,715.18

Rights-of-Way

Exclusion 

Areas

core 2,165.61 101,174.34 101,174.34 101,174.33 2,164.01

connectivity 0.00 2,827.77 2,827.77 2,827.77 0.00

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

SFAs 0 0 0 0 1178

GHMA 2,020.55 2,020.55 481,831.60 2,090.00 2,020.55

TOTAL 4,186.16 106,022.66 585,833.71 106,092.10 5,362.33

Avoidance core 11,538.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 99,010.33

309
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Areas connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 817.69

proposed core 0 0 0.00 0 62,768.35

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0 0.00 0 62,435.15

SFAs 0 0 0.00 0.00 1599

GHMA 27,012.33 479,811.19 0.00 28,481.57 14,023.82

TOTAL 38,550.85 479,811.19 0.00 28,481.57 240,650.35

Mineral Materials Closed 

Areas

core 0.00 373,616.32 373,616.32 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 10,906.65 10,906.65 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SFAs 0 0 0 0 0

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 0.00 384,522.97 384,522.97 0.00 0.00

Locatable 

Minerals

Existing 

Withdrawals

core 96.58 101.36 101.36 96.58 2,188.20

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SFAs 0 0 0 0 1178

general habitat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11

TOTAL 96.58 101.36 101.36 96.58 3,366.05

Proposed 

Withdrawals

core 0.00 373,514.84 373,514.84 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 10,906.66 10,906.66 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

310
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SFAs 0.00 0 0 0.00 0

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 0.00 384,421.50 384,421.50 0.00 0.00

Considered 

for 

Proposed 

Withdrawal

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,015.93

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SFAs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1016

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,032.31

Solid Leasable 

Minerals (nonenergy)

Closed 

Areas

core 0.00 373,616.32 373,616.32 0.00 25.64

connectivity 0.00 10,906.65 10,906.65 0.00 6,385.87

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87,031.96

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63,217.27

SFAs 0 0 0 0 6.76

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 0.00 384,522.97 384,522.97 0.00 156,623.01

Wind Energy Excluded

core 957.34 101,174.34 101,174.34 957.34 957.34

connectivity 0.00 2,827.77 2,827.77 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00 0.00 62,706.08 0.00 254.29

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 62,435.15 0.00 0.00

311
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A Alternative B Alternative C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

SFAs 0 0 0 0 0

GHMA 0.00 2,776.27 481,831.74 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 957.34 106,778.37 585,833.85 957.34 1,211.63

Avoided

core 47,474.63 0.00 0.00 100,216.99 100,216.99

connectivity 13,485.40 0.00 0.00 32,834.17 30,824.09

proposed core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62,514.06

proposed 

connectivity

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62,435.15

SFAs 915,882.81 0.00 0.00 1,629,900.02 1,629,900.03

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 2,438,850.00 0.00 0.00 4,608,420.00 4,731,350.00

312
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 2: Combined Acres by Land Use Restriction for Bridger-Teton National Forest Federal Surface and Federal Mineral Leases.

Resource/

Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

Surface 

Disturbing 

Activities

Prohibited 

Areas

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.47

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 724.26

proposed 

connectivity 1,383.76

SFAs 6.47

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Prohibited 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,120.97

Restricted 

Areas

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Restricted 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Closed

core 2,084.91 5,945.46 3,460.00 1.89 2,083.32

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 1,178.47

GHMA 1,178.47 2,776.29 312,122.83 0.00 0.00

313
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/

Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest 

Service Unit

3,263.38 8,721.76 315,582.82 1.89 3,261.79

No Surface 

Occupancy

core 0.00 18.38 0.00 0.00 6.45

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 724.26

proposed 

connectivity 1,383.76

SFAs 6.45

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL NSO acres 

within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 18.38 0.00 0.00 2,120.93

Controlled 

Surface Use

core 1,306.05 0.00 0.00 8.36 3,855.69

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 28,699.85

proposed

connectivity 61,051.37

SFAs 1,591.37

GHMA 6,255.37 0.00 0.00 845.77 17.96

TOTAL CSU acres 

within Forest 

Service Unit

7,561.43 0.00 0.00 854.13 95,216.24

Rights-of-Way Exclusion 

Areas

core 2,083.21 5,931.12 5,931.13 5,931.12 2,081.60

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 1,177.77

GHMA 24.02 24.02 324,181.11 24.02 24.02

314
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/

Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

TOTAL Exclusion 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

2,107.23 5,955.15 330,112.23 5,955.14 3,283.40

Avoidance 

Areas

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,849.52

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 29,384.94

proposed 

connectivity 62,435.13

SFAs 1,598.50

GHMA 2.59 324,157.20 0.00 2.59 2.59

TOTAL Avoidance 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

2.59 324,157.20 0.00 2.59 97,270.68

Mineral 

Materials

Closed 

Areas

core 0.00 6,188.23 6,188.23 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 6,188.23 6,188.23 0.00 0.00

Locatable 

Minerals

Existing 

Withdrawal

s

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,081.69

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 1,177.85

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

315
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/

Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

TOTAL Existing 

Withdrawals within 

Forest Service Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,259.54

Proposed 

Withdrawal

s

core 0.00 6,188.19 6,188.19 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Proposed 

Withdrawals within 

Forest Service Unit

0.00 6,188.19 6,188.19 0.00 0.00

Considered 

for 

Proposed 

Withdrawal

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,015.93

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 1,016.38

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Considered 

for Proposed 

Withdrawal within 

Forest Service Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,032.31

Solid Leasable 

Minerals (nonenergy)

Closed 

Areas

core 0.00 6,188.23 6,188.23 0.00 25.64

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 32,756.82

proposed 

connectivity 63,195.32

316
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/

Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Proposed Plan

SFAs 6.76

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 6,188.23 6,188.23 0.00 95,984.55

Wind Energy

Excluded

core 0.00 5,931.12 5,931.13 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 2,776.27 324,181.22 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Excluded 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 8,707.39 330,112.35 0.00 0.00

Avoided

core 1,127.15 0.00 0.00 5,931.12 5,931.12

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,776.27 0.00

proposed core 29,384.94

proposed 

connectivity 62,435.13

SFAs 2,776.27

GHMA 1,127.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Avoidance 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

2,254.27 0.00 0.00 8,707.39 100,527.46

317
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 3: Combined Acres by Land Use Restriction for Medicine Bow National Forest Federal Surface and 

Federal Mineral Leases.

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Surface 

Disturbing 

Activities

Prohibited 

Areas

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity 0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Prohibited 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Restricted 

Areas

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,444.47

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.44

TOTAL Restricted 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,513.91

Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Closed

core 81.54 6,280.80 6,280.80 0.00 81.54

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

318
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

GHMA 0.00 0.00 28,609.35 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

81.54 6,280.80 34,890.15 0.00 81.54

No Surface 

Occupancy

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31

TOTAL NSO acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31

Controlled 

Surface Use

core 407.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,199.26

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 3,331.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL CSU acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

3,738.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,199.26

Rights-of-Way Exclusion 

Areas

core 82.40 5,019.37 5,019.37 5,019.37 82.40

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

319
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

GHMA 193.57 193.57 22,635.07 263.02 193.57

TOTAL Exclusion acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

275.97 5,212.95 27,654.45 5,282.39 275.97

Avoidance 

Areas

core 239.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,936.97

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 2,087.81 22,441.51 0.00 3,557.05 2,087.81

TOTAL Avoidance 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

2,327.69 22,441.51 0.00 3,557.05 7,024.78

Mineral Materials Closed 

Areas

core 0.00 6,438.52 6,438.52 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 6,438.52 6,438.52 0.00 0.00

Locatable 

Minerals

Existing 

Withdrawals

core 96.58 96.58 96.58 96.58 97.02

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

320
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Existing 

Withdrawals within 

Forest Service Unit

96.58 96.58 96.58 96.58 97.02

Proposed 

Withdrawals

core 0.00 6,341.93 6,341.93 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Proposed 

Withdrawals within 

Forest Service Unit

0.00 6,341.93 6,341.93 0.00 0.00

Considered 

for 

Proposed 

Withdrawal

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Considered for 

Proposed Withdrawal 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Solid Leasable 

Minerals (nonenergy)

Closed 

Areas

core 0.00 6,438.52 6,438.52 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 0.00

321
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

connectivity

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 6,438.52 6,438.52 0.00 0.00

Wind Energy

Excluded

core 0.00 5,019.37 5,019.37 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 22,635.08 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Excluded acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 5,019.37 27,654.46 0.00 0.00

Avoided

core 378.20 0.00 0.00 5,019.37 5,019.37

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Avoidance 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

378.20 0.00 0.00 5,019.37 5,019.37

322
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Table 4: Combined Acres by Land Use Restriction for Thunder Basin National Grassland Federal Surface and Federal Mineral Leases.

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

Surface 

Disturbing 

Activities

Prohibited 

Areas

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,996.71

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 1,411.09

proposed 

connectivity 0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.98

TOTAL Prohibited 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,420.78

Restricted 

Areas

core 4,617.65 0.00 0.00 819.61 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 2,170.87 0.00 0.00 258.08 0.00

TOTAL Restricted 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

6,788.52 0.00 0.00 1,077.69 0.00

Fluid Mineral 

Leasing Closed

core 0.00 323,647.68 323,647.67 6,734.47 0.00

connectivity 0.00 10,099.89 10,099.89 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 755,452.70 3.46 0.00

323
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 333,747.56 1,089,200.26 6,737.93 0.00

No Surface 

Occupancy

core 4,505.06 114,761.52 114,761.52 0.00 22,228.95

connectivity 0.00 139.29 139.29 0.00 0.00

proposed core 2,852.43

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 3,586.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,473.05

TOTAL NSO acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

8,091.57 114,900.81 114,900.81 0.00 26,554.43

Controlled 

Surface Use

core 178,804.57 0.00 0.00 87,214.87 281,508.21

connectivity 320.84 0.00 0.00 57.86 5,589.99

proposed core 47,535.56

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 153,362.99 0.00 0.00 55,111.12 42,665.93

TOTAL CSU acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

332,488.40 0.00 0.00 142,383.86 377,299.68

Rights-of-Way Exclusion 

Areas

core 0.00 90,223.84 90,223.84 90,223.84 0.00

connectivity 0.00 2,827.77 2,827.77 2,827.77 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 1,802.96 1,802.96 135,015.42 1,802.96 1,802.96

324
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

TOTAL Exclusion acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

1,802.96 94,854.57 228,067.03 94,854.57 1,802.96

Avoidance 

Areas

core 11,298.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 90,223.84

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 817.69

proposed core 33,379.94

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 24,921.93 133,212.48 0.00 24,921.93 11,933.42

TOTAL Avoidance 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

36,220.56 133,212.48 0.00 24,921.93 136,354.89

Mineral Materials Closed 

Areas

core 0.00 360,989.58 360,989.58 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 10,906.65 10,906.65 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 371,896.23 371,896.23 0.00 0.00

Locatable 

Minerals

Existing 

Withdrawals

core 0.00 4.78 4.78 0.00 9.49

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

325
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

TOTAL Existing 

Withdrawals within 

Forest Service Unit

4.78 4.78 4.78 0.00 9.49

Proposed 

Withdrawals

core 0.00 360,984.72 360,984.72 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 10,906.66 10,906.66 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Proposed 

Withdrawals within 

Forest Service Unit

0.00 371,891.38 371,891.38 0.00 0.00

Considered 

for 

Proposed 

Withdrawal

core 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

proposed core 0.00

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Considered for 

Proposed Withdrawal 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Solid Leasable 

Minerals (nonenergy)

Closed 

Areas

core 0.00 360,989.58 360,989.58 0.00 0.00

connectivity 0.00 10,906.65 10,906.65 0.00 6,385.87

proposed core 54,252.59

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

326
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

Resource/Activity

Land Use 

Restriction Habitat Evaluated

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Proposed 

Plan

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Closed acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

0.00 371,896.23 371,896.23 0.00 60,638.47

Wind Energy

Excluded

core 957.34 90,223.84 90,223.84 957.34 957.34

connectivity 0.00 2,827.77 2,827.77 0.00 0.00

proposed core 254.29

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 135,015.44 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Excluded acres 

within Forest Service

Unit

957.34 93,051.61 228,067.05 957.34 1,211.63

Avoided

core 45,969.27 0.00 0.00 89,266.50 89,266.50

connectivity 174.85 0.00 0.00 2,827.77 817.69

proposed core 33,125.65

proposed 

connectivity

0.00

SFAs 0.00

GHMA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL Avoidance 

acres within Forest 

Service Unit

46,144.12 0.00 0.00 92,094.27 123,209.84

327
Final EIS USFS Biological Evaluation Appendix M

328