Draft EIS Appendix D 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-1 

APPENDIX D—MONITORING FRAMEWORK 

D.1 INTRODUCTION

Land use planning establishes intervals and standards for monitoring to report progress on the 

implementation and effectiveness of the conservation actions outlined in the plans. This “Greater SageGrouse Draft Monitoring Framework” (hereafter, draft monitoring framework) outlines the process and 

methodology that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) 

will use to monitor implementation and effectiveness of resource management plan (RMP) and land and 

resource management plan (LRMP) decisions affecting Greater Sage-Grouse (hereafter, sage-grouse). 

The BLM and Forest Service are undertaking this planning effort to provide regulatory certainty that land 

management actions reduce threats to habitats and populations that area under agency control, thereby 

maintaining or restoring habitats necessary to support viable sage-grouse populations. Implementation 

monitoring will evaluate whether (and to what extent) decisions to ameliorate threats to sage-grouse have 

been implemented. Effectiveness monitoring will consider the results of sage-grouse population 

monitoring with results of sage-grouse habitat monitoring in the context of existing conditions described 

in the baseline environmental report (Manier et al. 2013). Habitat monitoring includes both vegetation 

monitoring and disturbance monitoring. 

This draft monitoring framework establishes the use of measurable quantitative indicators for habitat 

availability and maintenance of habitat types (e.g. priority/core and general habitats) to ensure each 

agency’s ability to make broad (yet consistent) generalizations about habitats across the range of the 

species. Monitoring methods and indicators are derived from the best available science. Corporate datasets will be established so that data can easily be “rolled up” for reporting monitoring results across the 

range of sage-grouse, as defined by Schroeder et al. (2004), by populations and subpopulations as defined 

by Connelly et al. (2004), by RMP/LRMP (hereafter, land use plans [LUP]) area, by the seven Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Sage-grouse Management Zones (Stiver et al. 

2006), and by Priority Areas for Conservation (PAC) as defined in the sage-grouse Conservation 

Objectives Team (COT) Report (United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2013). Funding 

support and dedicated personnel for broad and mid-scale monitoring will be renewed annually through the 

normal budget process. 

Sage-grouse are a landscape species, and conservation is a scale-dependent process whereby priority 

landscapes are identified across the species range and appropriate conservation actions are implemented 

within seasonal habitats to benefit populations. Following guidelines established by multiple agencies in 

the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF), this approach uses the four orders of sage-grouse 

habitat selection: first order (broad scale), second order (mid-scale), third order (fine scale), and fourth 

order (site scale) (Stiver et al. 2010, Johnson 1980). Because LUP decisions are made largely at the broad 

and mid-scale, this draft monitoring framework focuses on these two larger spatial scales. The need for 

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

variability, threats, and land health; however, indicators at these scales will be consistent with the HAF. 

Thus, this draft monitoring framework includes methods, data standards, and intervals of monitoring at 

the broad and mid-scales, while outlining indicators that should be measured at all scales. 

D.2 BROAD AND MID-SCALES

First order habitat selection at the broad scale describes the selection of physical or geographical range of 

a species. There is one first order habitat, the range of the species defined by populations of sage-grouse 

associated with sagebrush landscapes (Schroeder et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2004). Additionally, there is 
Appendix D Draft EIS 

D-2 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

an intermediate scale between the broad and mid-scales that was delineated from floristic provinces 

within which similar environmental factors influence vegetation communities. This scale was developed 

by WAFWA and is referred to as the WAFWA Management Zones (Stiver et al. 2006). 

Second order habitat selection at the mid-scale includes sage-grouse populations, subpopulations, and 

PACs. The second order includes at least 40 discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 

2004). Subpopulations range in area from 300 to 22,400 mi2, while populations range in area from 150 to 

54,600 mi2. PACs range from 20 to 20,400 mi2. 

Broad and mid-scale monitoring results will be reported at the appropriate and applicable geographic 

scale (Table D-1 and Figure D-1). 

Table D-1. Monitoring for Sage-grouse at the Broad and Mid-Scales 

Geographic Scales

Implementation Habitat Population 

(States)

Decisions Disturbance Vegetation Demographics

Broad Scale: From 

the range of sagegrouse to WAFWA 

Management Zones

LUP objectives, 

thresholds and 

management actions

Priority and general 

habitat delineation 

(occupied habitat)

Existing national 

level vegetation 

monitoring and 

mapping efforts 

(remote sensing)

WAFWA 

Management Zone 

population level 

and population 

trends

Mid-Scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management Zone 

scale to 

subpopulation/PAC 

scale

LUP decisions, 

vegetation/mid-scale 

decisions

Percent of 

sagebrush per unit 

area, anthropogenic 

footprint, density of 

energy development

National data 

augmented with 

locally collected 

data using core 

indicators and 

statistical study 

design 

Subpopulation 

scale, dispersal 

and lek complex 

trends
Draft EIS Appendix D 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-3 

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

for Conservation 

 *GRSG=Greater Sage-Grouse 
Appendix D Draft EIS 

D-4 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

D.2.1 Implementation (Decision) Monitoring 

The regulations for the BLM (43 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 1610.4-9) and Forest Service (36 

CFR 219.12) require that land use plans establish intervals and standards for monitoring and evaluations, 

based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions involved. Implementation monitoring is the process of 

tracking and documenting the implementation (or the progress toward implementation) of land use plan 

decisions. Because sage-grouse conservation actions will occur on a fairly regular basis, the BLM and 

Forest Service will be documenting progress annually toward full implementation of the land use plan. 

D.2.2 Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring 

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the range-wide distribution of sage-grouse 

populations will be ascertained using the most recent version of “Existing Vegetation Type” (EVT) layer 

in LANDFIRE. The resulting geospatially explicit map will be compared against the geographic extent of 

land that has the capability to support sagebrush vegetation as determined using LANDFIRE Biophysical 

Setting (BpS) to ascertain the areas within the range-wide distribution of sage-grouse populations that 

have the potential to support sagebrush vegetation. The resulting sagebrush map will become the base 

layer against which disturbance changes are measured, incorporated, and reported. 

LANDFIRE lacks specificity of types of sagebrush vegetation and has relatively low accuracy; however, 

it is currently the best available range-wide mapping product. The BLM is extending the Grass/Shrub 

mapping product that spatially depicts the percent cover of sagebrush vegetation as well as three other 

components (percent bare ground, percent herbaceous vegetation, and percent shrubs) range-wide (Homer 

et al. 2009). As the Grass/Shrub mapping base product is developed over the next five years, it will refine 

the EVT in LANDFIRE and better depict the current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation. 

The geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation will be reported at a maximum of five-year intervals. The 

BLM and Forest Service will use sagebrush cover estimates from the Landscape Monitoring Framework 

points within the range-wide distribution of sage-grouse populations to ground-truth, refine, and improve 

the accuracy of sagebrush vegetation within the Grass/Shrub and LANDFIRE mapping products. 

The Grass/Shrub mapping product will allow for estimation of patch size and number, patch connectivity, 

linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (mid-scale indicators; see Stiver et al. 2010). Until 

the Grass/Shrub mapping product is available, these landscape metrics will be calculated annually using 

the LANDFIRE EVT as the sagebrush base layer and integrating the spatial extent of new disturbances 

into the database. Once the disturbance updates have been included into the base layer, the landscape 

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

geographic boundaries. 

D.2.3 Habitat (Disturbance) Monitoring 

Most of the decisions in these land use plans are in response to “Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or Range” in the USFWS’s 2010 listing decision for 

sage-grouse (75 FR 13910 2010). The USFWS identified several “threats” affecting factor A, therefore 

the BLM and Forest Service will monitor the relative extent of these threats on sagebrush, both spatially 

and temporally, to report on conditions at the appropriate and applicable geographic scales and 

boundaries. 

Disturbance monitoring will focus on three general measures: 

1) Percent of sagebrush per unit area 

2) Percent of non-habitat (human footprint) per unit area 
Draft EIS Appendix D 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-5 

3) Number of energy facilities and mining locations per unit area (density) 

To accomplish disturbance monitoring, the BLM and the Forest Service will begin with a base layer of 

sagebrush described above in Section 1.2.2. Restored areas will also be considered when evaluating the 

percentage of sagebrush on the landscape. 

Next, the BLM and Forest Service will use corporate, range-wide, and best available data (Manier et al. 

2013) to evaluate anthropogenic and natural disturbances (direct physical footprint) of the sage-grouse 

habitat based on threats (Attachment A) listed in Factor A of the USFWS listing decision. Most of these 

data are from external data sources and are considered the best available data at the range-wide scale. A 

subset of these data (e.g. mine and energy sites), provided by BLM field and state offices and Forest 

Service forests and regional offices, will be updated and reported to agency headquarters annually. 

Disturbance data will include: 

1. Agriculture 

2. Urbanization 

3. Habitat treatments 

4. Wildfire 

5. Invasive plants 

6. Conifer encroachment 

7. Energy (coal mines) 

8. Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

9. Energy (wind towers) 

10. Energy (solar fields) 

11. Energy (geothermal) 

12. Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

13. Infrastructure (roads) 

14. Infrastructure (railroads) 

15. Infrastructure (power lines) 

16. Infrastructure (communication towers) 

17. Infrastructure (other vertical structures) 

18. Other developed rights-of-ways 

D.2.4 Population (Demographics) Monitoring 

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse populations within their 

respective states. The BLM and Forest Service have initiated a process to establish WAFWA to 

coordinate collection of annual population data by state agencies, and facilitate analysis of these data at 

least once every five years. Data collection will be coordinated at the population/subpopulation level to 

help address effectiveness of conservation measures outlined in the conservation objectives report and 

implementation of land use plan decisions related to sage-grouse. These population data will also be 

available for analysis at the WAFWA Sage-grouse Management Zones and range-wide scale to 

demonstrate overall effectiveness of management actions across the range of the species. State wildlife 

agencies will provide annual lek data and five-year population summaries to BLM state offices and Forest 

Service regional offices to convey that information to the BLM National Operations Center for long-term 

reference, use and storage. The existing memorandum of understanding signed by WAFWA, the BLM, 

the Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the USFWS 

(http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fish_wildlife_an

d/sage-grouse.Par.6386.File.dat/MOU%20on%20Greater%20Sage-Grouse.pdf) will be revised to outline 
Appendix D Draft EIS 

D-6 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

collaboration, process, and responsibilities for data analysis and transfer related to management of sagegrouse. 

D.2.5 Effectiveness Monitoring 

Effectiveness monitoring for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments will involve 

evaluating the change in habitat conditions from the baseline conditions, in relation to the goals and 

objectives of the plan and other range-wide conservation strategies (BLM 2004i, Stiver et al. 2006, and 

USFWS 2013). The BLM and the Forest Service will evaluate those data to characterize the relationship 

among the disturbance, habitat condition, and population trends at the appropriate and applicable 

geographic scale or boundary, identify emerging issues and research needs, and suggest implications for 

management. This process will involve the compilation of broad and mid-scale data and population trends 

needed for the evaluation of effectiveness with a five-year reporting schedule, or more often as needed. 

D.3 FINE AND SITE SCALES 

Third-order habitat selection at the fine scale describes the physical and geographic area within home 

ranges. At this level, maps of seasonal habitats (breeding, summer, winter) and the connectivity between 

these seasonal use areas can be examined to determine limiting factors for populations, subpopulations, 

and PACs. 

Fourth-order habitat selection at the site scale is based on physical conditions and the geographic area 

within seasonal ranges to meet life requisite needs (e.g. nesting and brood-rearing). Specific habitat 

measures are used at this scale as microsite conditions within the seasonal range to determine distribution 

and use. These measures are typically sampled across a defined area to inform third-order habitat 

selection. 

Details and application of these two scales will be determined during implementation of the Wyoming 

Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments. The need for fine and site scale specific habitat monitoring will 

vary by area depending on existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. For example, 

implementation monitoring will track decisions in priority habitat; habitat vegetation monitoring will be 

conducted to evaluate projects targeting sage-grouse habitat enhancement and/or restoration; habitat 

disturbance monitoring will be conducted where mid-scale monitoring indicates the need for fine scaled 

anthropogenic disturbance footprints; and population monitoring (in cooperation with state wildlife 

agencies) will be analyzed below the subpopulation/PAC level, where needed, for more specific 

effectiveness monitoring (some LUP objectives, activity plans, development plans, leasing plans, etc.).

At a minimum, the habitat indicators at the fine and site scales will be consistent with the HAF and the 

core indicators in assessment, inventory and monitoring (AIM) strategy (Toevs et al. 2011); however, the 

metrics and interpretation for the indicators can be adjusted for regional conditions. When evaluating the 

land health habitat standard in designated sage-grouse habitats, the BLM will analyze core indicators and 

other supplemental site scale (HAF) indicators as appropriate for the seasonal habitat. The activity level 

plans will describe a sampling scheme for collecting indicators with a non-biased sampling design for 

vegetation treatments or management actions implemented at the site scale. In addition, the consistent 

collection of these data will be used to inform the classification and interpretation of imagery used at the 

mid-scale as described above. 

For examples of current applications of disturbance and reclamation monitoring at the fine scale, see the 

BLM Wyoming Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) and the BLM White River Data 

Management System (WRDMS) in development with the United States Geological Survey (USGS). 
Draft EIS Appendix D 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment D-7 

D.4 FINAL MONITORING PLAN

This draft monitoring framework was developed for draft environmental impact statements to describe the 

proposed monitoring activities for this plan. The BLM and Forest Service will consider public comments 

and collaborate with other agencies to finalize the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments

Sage-grouse Monitoring Plan. 
Appendix D Draft EIS 

D-8 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

ATTACHMENT A

Geospatial data layers were used to determine three factors for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat disturbance 

monitoring at the broad and mid scales. 

Geospatial Data Layer Percent of 

Sagebrush 

Percent of Nonhabitat (Human 

Footprint) 

Number of 

Energy and 

Mining Facilities

Sagebrush X

Areas with biotic potential for sagebrush X

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Habitat treatments X

Wildfire X

Invasive plants X

Conifer encroachment X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development 

facilities) X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and salable 

developments) X

Transmission corridors and other developed 

rights-of-way

X